> On Jul 31, 2017, at 6:52 PM, Gary Richmond wrote:
>
> But you will recall that his classification of signs and expansion of this
> classification recently discussed here was an important part of his letters
> to Victoria Welby. And in his late work, even his discussion of and expansion
> of
Clark, Stephen R, list,
There a great deal I agree with in your post, Clark, but even more that I
disagree with. But I'll have to respond more fully at a later date. For now
just a few immediate reactions. I will have little to say on Heidegger as I
haven't read his work in years, and I recall th
> On Jul 31, 2017, at 4:41 PM, Gary Richmond wrote:
>
> But I consider Kirsti's notion that "CSP was all his life after SIGNS. That
> was earlier. Later he was after meanings" itself, if not 'gravely', at least
> completely in wrong. Peirce was actively thinking about signs and semiotics
> th
Clark, Kirsti, list,
Clark, it sounds like you have* a lot* to deal with at the moment, to say
the least! I suppose I do too, although quite very different mattersas upon
returning from the funeral of a close relative, my spouse and I have been
called out of town again to help another relative wit
That’s interesting. I was familiar with Derrida’s and of course Habermas but I
didn’t know there were others.
In Germany there were e.g. Herbert Marcuse, Jürgen von Kempski, Max Bense, his
wife Elisabeth Walther-Bense, the late Karl-Otto Apel, Klaus Oehler or Helmut
Pape.
Best,
Stefan
Am 31
Kirsti, list:
If the French style of writing relies on argumentation- within the text at
hand-
and it is assumed that any reader is thoroughly familiar with the sources,
then the reader ought to know that “see-my-otics” has a suffix that is of
Greek origin.
So, what is it we know about what
> On Jul 31, 2017, at 12:52 PM, kirst...@saunalahti.fi wrote:
> In my view Gary R. is gravely wrong in assuming that CSP was all his life
> after SIGNS. That was earlier. Later he was after meanings.
>
> Heidegger was never attempting to create any theory of SIGNS. He was after
> meanings. Thus
Peirce did not use the term "semantics. But he did use the term:
"semeiotics". He even gave advice in spelling the word. This was his
advice: " see-my-o-tics".
Anyone can google this, I assume. If need be.
In my view Gary R. is gravely wrong in assuming that CSP was all his
life after SIGNS.
