Re: [PEIRCE-L] Three Interpretants

Edwina, list, You wrote: "I think that the various comments and concerns by others on the list, that attempts to set up an analytic and abstract model of the semiosic process, with each part defined within an exact and singular term and providing an exact and singular action - actually deny the

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Three Interpretants

List: > On Mar 23, 2018, at 6:20 PM, Stephen C. Rose wrote: > > The degenerate notions elude me. Me, too. This term has a crisp meaning in physics/chemistry terminology. Cheers Jerry - PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply

[PEIRCE-L] Three Interpretants

List I think that the various comments and concerns by others on the list, that attempts to set up an analytic and abstract model of the semiosic process, with each part defined within an exact and singular term and providing an exact and singular action - actually deny the real nature

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Three Interpretants

What is all experience if not the experience of semiosis (encounter with signs) and how can these be "studied" (semiotics) without words of some other interpretive means? As I parse things, reality (which I insist is all) communicates with us via signs. We, as part of reality, refine signs into

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Three Interpretants

List: I concur with John Sowa’s post and his observations on the need for intellectual honesty. Cheers Jerry > On Mar 22, 2018, at 8:38 PM, John F Sowa wrote: > > On 3/21/2018 2:22 PM, Gary Richmond wrote: >> Peirce says here that this kind of analysis "relates to a real

RE: [PEIRCE-L] Three Interpretants

John, Gary R, Jon A.S., Mary et al., I too have been reflecting on the last few sentences of Peirce’s 1909 letter to James, but my thoughts have been tending in a somewhat different direction. When Peirce says that his attempt to distinguish clearly among the three interpretants “relates to a

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Three Interpretants

John, list, JS: On 3/21/2018 2:22 PM, Gary Richmond wrote: > Peirce says here that this kind of analysis "relates to a real and > important three-way distinction." It may yet have been--at that point in > time--"quite hazy," but since Peirce saw it as "a real and important > three-way