Jeff, List:
Again, I am shifting this exchange to the new thread.
First of all, CP 1.537 is from 1903, when Peirce still thought of semiosis
as an "infinite series" of Signs in both directions. By 1906 (CP 4.536),
he recognized that some Signs *do not* have other Signs as their
Interpretants--t
Gary R., List:
I am shifting this exchange to the new thread where I posted the diagram.
I would not (yet) say that the IO and II are *sufficient *to constitute the
Sign; there may still be some remainder when they are analytically
distinguished from it. However, I have come to realize that we
Jon, list,
After studying again the attachment of your model of semiosic determination
you resent, I'm beginning to better understand what confused me about it
earlier. I would recommend that anyone interested in this topic take
another look at it as it has (at least for me) been much clarified th
Jerry C., List:
Where exactly did Peirce use "the sequence of terms thing, representamen,
form"? With respect to his Categories, Form (quality) is 1ns, Matter
(thing) is 2ns, and Entelechy (Sign/Representamen) is 3ns.
In his later writings, Peirce broadened his one-word summary of 3ns
from *repr
Jeff, List:
The fourth bullet is not derived from any particular passage written by
Peirce; it is simply my own attempt to analyze the Sign and Interpretant in
any concrete instance of semiosis by means of Aristotle's four causes, with
the Correlates all conceptualized in terms of Form/Matter/Ente
JAS, List:
Thank for clarifying the change of views of CSP wrt meaning of representamen
and sign.
>From my scientific perspective, this substitution of the word sign for the
>word represent amen appears to be a major change in his world view toward the
>meaning of scientific symbol systems an
Jon S, List,
You refer to sample texts for the sake of supporting the first three of the
bulleted points, but no reference is provided for the fourth point. Do you, by
chance, have textual references that I might consult in order to understand the
seven points that are made:
* (1) The ef
BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px; }
Jon, list
Good heavens - I didn't know that your adamant arguments for the
triad of IO-R-II was due to any attempt on your part to 'reconcile
with my model of semiosis'!!! I thought you were arguing for that
tri
Gary F, list,
Yes, I was referring to your comment--I don't recall exactly when your
wrote it--that *only* the dicisign has an immediate object. If you no
longer hold that position (or even if you do and do something like bracket
it for the nonce), then a lot of the 'debate' I would imagine can be
https://twitter.com/stephencrose/status/1011282261528936449
This will get you to a just posted video that basically suggests that
science's current project of reducing quantum understanding to the limits
of the Copenhagen understanding is doomed longterm.
It seems to me Peirce long ago perceived
Dear list,
Why are examples the go-cart of judgment?
*CALLARD:* I think many reasons, but one of them that pops to my head is
that often in philosophy, we’re trying to theorize some phenomenon. Say
we’re trying to theorize aspiration, trying to give a theory of it, or
weakness of will. The wa
Gary R,
I apologize for giving the impression that I consider my reading of Peirce more
legitimate than yours, or anyone’s. What I said was that IF one reads any work
of semiotic analysis as if it were a polemic, one will miss the point of it. I
still consider that conditional proposition true.
Gary F, list,
GF: [Bellucci's] book is not a polemic and does not try to “prove” that the
dicisign is the only sign class that has an immediate object. If you pay
close attention to what Peirce wrote about the immediate object in 1904-8,
setting aside any prejudices you may have about what the imm
Edwina, List:
I fought for the definition of the Sign as a triad of IO-R-II because I
hoped for a while that it might eventually be possible, on that basis, to
reconcile our two different models of semiosis. It became evident a few
months ago that this is not the case, since we still cannot even
BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}JAS, list
I have to include myself with Gary R as - in my 1stness - stunned
by your abandonment of defining the Sign itself as that triad of
II-R-II! You fought for just this definition, tooth and nail, for
month
Gary R, you wrote:
Although I've clearly stated that I agree with you, Bellucci, and Stjernfel,
that the dicisign is perhaps of particular importance in semiosis, I think that
valorizing it by claiming that it is the only sign class that has an immediate
object needs to be proved. You suggest t
16 matches
Mail list logo
