Re: [PEIRCE-L] RE: signs, correlates, and triadic relations

2015-12-18 Thread Sungchul Ji
Hi Gary F, Thank you very much. I read it once, but I am afraid I will need more than one reading to really understand what Peirce was trying to say. All the best. Sung On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 5:54 PM, wrote: > NDTR is an acronym for “Nomenclature and Divisions of Triadic Relations,” > EP2:28

RE: [PEIRCE-L] RE: signs, correlates, and triadic relations

2015-12-18 Thread gnox
NDTR is an acronym for “Nomenclature and Divisions of Triadic Relations,” EP2:289-99, fifth section of the 1903 Syllabus, and the main text this thread has been referring to, so far. Since I included in my post a few quotes from MS 7, which we discussed at some length back in the spring of 2

Re: [PEIRCE-L] RE: signs, correlates, and triadic relations

2015-12-18 Thread Sungchul Ji
Gary F, Jeff, List, Please excuse my ignorance. What is NDTR ? Thanks in advance. Sung On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 3:46 PM, wrote: > Jeff, list, > > > > It does get tricky when we consider the percept as a sign — as the > excerpts you quote in your first two paragraphs (below) demonstrate; and I

Re: [PEIRCE-L] signs, correlates, and triadic relations

2015-12-18 Thread Clark Goble
> On Dec 18, 2015, at 1:26 PM, Helmut Raulien wrote: > > "If you have the form but not the matter then it’s degenerate.". Thank you: > This way eventually, after a long time, I think I understand why it is > called degenerate. Yeah, it’s a terminology I kind of struggle with a lot too. I kep

RE: [PEIRCE-L] RE: signs, correlates, and triadic relations

2015-12-18 Thread gnox
Jeff, list, It does get tricky when we consider the percept as a sign — as the excerpts you quote in your first two paragraphs (below) demonstrate; and I think it gets equally tricky when we consider the qualisign as a percept. But my more specific responses here will be inserted below, star

Aw: Re: [PEIRCE-L] signs, correlates, and triadic relations

2015-12-18 Thread Helmut Raulien
  Supplement: So, degeneracy is not a de-evolution or reverse (de-) generation, but an incomplete or wrong comprehension of how something has been generated (and so the reason why it has), based on the fact, that the generation process is not easily observable, not observable at all, or not observ

Aw: Re: [PEIRCE-L] signs, correlates, and triadic relations

2015-12-18 Thread Helmut Raulien
Clark, list, you wrote: " If you have the form but not the matter then it’s degenerate.". Thank you: This way eventually, after a long time,  I think I understand why it is called degenerate. Maybe it is like this: "matter" may be understood for "reason", like in the question "Whats the matter?",