Re: Re: RE: [PEIRCE-L] Different Semeiotic Analyses (was tree-structure)

Auke, List, AvG: First of all, no offence taken. Glad to hear it as, of course, none was intended. AvB: This is a nice example of a intentional and a effectual representant standing asunder. I did not write 'nasty webmail' in response to the content of your mail. I would tend to agree with you

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Different Semeiotic Analyses (was tree-structure)

John, List: I seem to recall a recent on-List assertion that "Peirce would cringe at most, if not all attempts to paraphrase his thoughts." That is exactly what the first sentence below constitutes, unless it can be supported by a direct quotation from Peirce in which he explicitly states that a

Re: Re: RE: [PEIRCE-L] Different Semeiotic Analyses (was tree-structure)

John, List: I appreciate the frank recognition in the last sentence below that I am *not *"claiming to be a better semeiotician than Peirce was," simply by virtue of reaching a few different conclusions about semeiotic than he did. Likewise, I would never suggest that someone was claiming to be a

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Different Semeiotic Analyses (was tree-structure)

Jon, When Peirce called a theory 'fallible, he did not mean "free to make adjustments".  There is a huge difference between "free to apply to new areas" and "free to adjust (i.e. change) the theory itself"',  The first (new applications) is "normal science" in Kuhn's terms.  But the second is

Re: Re: RE: [PEIRCE-L] Different Semeiotic Analyses (was tree-structure)

Gary R, First of all, no offence taken. This is a nice example of a intentional and a effectual representant standing asunder. I did not write 'nasty webmail' in response to the content of your mail. Always nice to see a native writer toying around with words. Jon Awbry is a master at it. I

Re: Re: RE: [PEIRCE-L] Different Semeiotic Analyses (was tree-structure)

Auke, I apologize for appearing to be 'nasty' in my recent post addressed to you. I didn't mean to be while, admittedly, meaning to "pull your leg" a bit as the English idiom would have it. I should have learned long ago that it's near impossible to get humor across in an email and clearly my

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Ethics of terminology

Edwina and Mary L, I agree with the points that both of you have made. ET> It is extremely difficult to come to a final conclusion about which meaning is 'right'. For an essay or book about Peirce, it's important to discuss his original terminology and not claim that any of the 21st c. terms

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Ethics of terminology (was Different Semeiotic Analyses

Mary, List, This appeared on my Facebook page (Charles S. Peirce Society) shortly after I read your message today and I thought you might find it of interest: The question being responded to below was, why did Peirce's "theory of semiotics . . . go unnoticed in James's radical empiricism"?

[PEIRCE-L] Fwd: CFP: Peirce Essay Prize 2020–21

FYI GR CFP: Peirce Essay Prize 2020–21 Peirce Essay Prize 2020–21: First Call for Papers View this email in your browser [image: Header: The Charles S. Peirce Society] Dear Gary, Please find the call for papers for the

[PEIRCE-L] Ethics of terminology

BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px; }John, Gary, list I think that's an important point: John wrote: "When we're writing textual criticism of Peirce's writings, it's essential to preserve the exact terms that occur in each quoted passage.

[PEIRCE-L] Nicotine, a semiotic confrontation between life and death

List, John,Gary, Jon, Jon Allan Preamble of https://www.academia.edu/42930701/Nicotine_a_semiotic_confrontation_between_life_and_death "This study is the third moment in a scientific approach of "knowledge by models" that perfectly suits Peirce's designs in this field. Indeed, Peirce classifies

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Ethics of terminology (was Different Semeiotic Analyses

John and list, You wrote: "Peirce's ethics of terminology is important. But he made an important distinction: If an author's term is adopted and used by other authors, then the person who coined that term has an obligation to continue using it in the same sense in which it is being used.

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Ethics of terminology (was Different Semeiotic Analyses

Gary R and Jon AS, Peirce's ethics of terminology is important.  But he made an important distinction:  If an author's term is adopted and used by other authors, then the person who coined that term has an obligation to continue using it in the same sense in which it is being used.  But if

Re: Re: RE: [PEIRCE-L] Different Semeiotic Analyses (was tree-structure)

Edwina and Jon, Induction always begins with data -- a set of observations about some subject.  By finding analogies and commonalities among the observations, it derives a probable hypothesis about the subject matter.  Further testing is necessary to increase the probability and generalize

Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Different Semeiotic Analyses (was tree-structure)

BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px; }Gary R - I'm not sure if the point is that one 'is' either focused on theory OR pragmatics. My view is that I don't see how one can be slotted into such an Either-Or scenario. That is, if one is interested

Fwd: Re: RE: [PEIRCE-L] Different Semeiotic Analyses (was tree-structure)

Nasty webmail. Gary R, With that you do not earn the box. It are not my heat lightnings (see below the Hausman quote) you utilized. The qualisign aspect is a medad or collection of medads brought together by the mind in the pure icon, the icon being not caused by the medads themselves, but

Re: RE: [PEIRCE-L] Different Semeiotic Analyses (was tree-structure)

Auke, list, What is funny -- in the sense not of your 'hilarious', but of my 'strange' -- is that well over a decade ago on this list I used the same example, an "im[p]ression of green the moment I look at the trees out of my window," (well, in truth, my impression(s) occurred as one late Spring