Dear Adrian:
Thanks for your stimulating post.
A bit of synchronicity arrived with it, as I was just now inquiring into the
logic of the names of things as representamen of forms.
As an example from my favorite discipline, chemistry, although comparable
logical situations exist in
Dear all:
I'm struggling with a way of tying Peirce's categories down to the 3
main elements by which we can make sense of art works: their
materiality, our experience of them, and their meanings. Putting it that
way suggests one ordering, but a deeper thinking through of the process
(and
Dear Adrian,
In addition to Edwina's just remarks.
For a discussion on art works it is better to use the semiotic terms,
instead of the categories. However it will be the question whether you need
semiotics for the purpose of your teaching students. It will depend on your
educational goal.
Adrian:
My first thoughts are to question whether the Peircean categories can be
separated, as you are doing, from the semiosic triad. I don't think they can be
so separated.
You seem to be trying to describe three aspects of art interpretation - and are
using metaphors or synonyms [as I
Hi Adrian, all,
There are some good answers here, to which I would add that working the
three categories is an art that flows into each other. For instance,
experience operates throughout and can be very different for utterer and
interpreter; 1st and 2nd, respectively. The reason for this, I
