Robert, Gary F., List:
I was intrigued by Robert's quote from CP 2.278 and wanted to take a look
at its context. It turns out that this is one of those places where
unfortunately the arrangement of the material by the CP editors is highly
misleading.
- 2.278-280 is from R 787 (c. 1895-6),
I agree with you. The stakes seem minor to me; In fact, I subtitled my book
"L'Algébre des Signes" with "Scientific Essay according to Charles Sanders
Peirce" and I made it clear in my introduction that given the state in
which Peirce's work is presented ("The Peircian Continent" very well
Cf: Sign Relations • Signs and Inquiry
At:
http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2020/06/11/sign-relations-%e2%80%a2-signs-and-inquiry/
All,
Here's a paragraph on an issue I've explored in more depth
both before and after writing this bit of ice-breaker to it,
but since it's a topic I get back to
Robert and Auke,
I don’t think anyone questions the reality of a pool of information, published
or not, which is not the “private property” of individual owners but is (or
should be) a resource available to all members of a culture. If we want to
discuss its role in cultural semiosis, why not
I think that we continue ignoring that Peirce had multiple uses and
therefore definitions of his terms - and there is not ONE definition
that is 'the truth', but, as Auke points out - the context wherein
that term is used defines the meaning:
"Auke:Isn't our duscussion about the meaning
Jon Alen,
> That is an opinion, and even if valid, it does not change the fact that
> Peirce invented and defined "the commens." I find it misleading to use his
> peculiar term to mean something else.
>
>
Isn't our duscussion about the meaning of a particular term, i.e. commens?
