[PEIRCE-L] Categories at work within the signs

Jon, List I remember reading to you that we already had this debate on the hexadic signs and that each one remained on its positions. I see that you have not changed and I see that you are investing the podium according to your own concerns. In the scientific debate everything is allowed except to

[PEIRCE-L] Re: Semiotics, Semiosis, Sign Relations

Cf: Semiotics, Semiosis, Sign Relations • 9 At: http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2020/04/12/semiotics-semiosis-sign-relations-%e2%80%a2-9/ All, Just a note to record this citation by Jon Alan Schmidt of an important theme in Peirce. It touches on one of those recurring questions which has come up

Aw: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Categories and Speculative Grammar

  Jon, List,   Maybe what I have called projective reduction (a term I have read at Jon Awbrey´s sometime) is the same as involution. I think, that e.g. the dynamic object involves two aspects or parts of its: The immaterial and the material, or in case of concept, the concept´s intension and e

Aw: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Categories and Speculative Grammar

      Supplement: My English is not too good: I have not read about projective reduction "at" Jon Awbrey´s (restaurant?), but in a post of his. Also my use of terms is neither perfect: Is involution / involvement the same as projective reduction outcome? To call the involved things "parts" is p

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Categories at work within the signs

Robert, List: RM: I remember reading to you that we already had this debate on the hexadic signs and that each one remained on its positions. Your memory is impressive--I did not recall our previous exchange about this, which hap

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Categories at work within the signs

Jon wrote: In other words, the nature of the final interpretant constrains the possible natures of the dynamic and immediate interpretants, just as the nature of the dynamical object constrains the possible nature of the immediate object. Jon, That is quite some statement, I wonder whether Tr

Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Categories and Speculative Grammar

Helmut, List: I am not familiar with "projective reduction," so I do not know whether it means the same thing as what Peirce called "involution" and what Robert is calling "presupposition." I am not aware of any text where Peirce says or implies that a dynamical object "involves two aspects or pa

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Categories at work within the signs

Auke, List: I am not sure that I understand your objection. In my current view, the final and normal interpretants are one and the same--whatever the sign *necessarily would* signify under ideal circumstances; namely, in the ultimate opinion after infinite inquiry by an infinite community. This

[PEIRCE-L] Re: Differential Logic

On 4/9/2020 11:02 AM, Edwina Taborsky wrote: > > Yes - I think Peirce and Spencer Brown work very well together. > > Thanks for all your work. > > Edwina Thanks, Edwina. I first encountered Peirce's Collected Papers sometime during my freshman year in one of the quieter corners of the Michigan S

[PEIRCE-L] The trichotomic machine brings order among the interpretants

Please excuse me. The link I indicated in my answer to Jon was not the right one. Here is the correct link : https://www.academia.edu/40493861/The_trichotomic_machine_brings_order_among_the_interpretants - PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to