Gary F, Jon A.S., List,
The introduction of psychological considerations into this discussion is, I
think, important, posing perhaps some interesting challenges for Peirce's
logic.
GF: If two minds can be simultaneously *distinct* and *welded* into one
mind *in the sign*, and the exchange of
Gary F., List:
GF: Yes, that’s why I specified that the Intentional Interpretant was an
interpretant of *the dialogue in which he [Peirce] was currently engaged*,
which continues both before and after the utterance of the focal text
As a determination of the mind of the *utterer *of the
Jerry C., List:
JLRC: the text in no way addresses such as enormous constraint. ...
Furthermore, phanerscopy is merely a term that is not a science in the
usual sense of meaning. ... So, the suggestion that Peirce is "plainly
referring" to phanerscopy is speaking for CSP ex cathedra.
Here
Jon AS, List,
JAS: Likewise, any "determination of the mind of the utterer," including both
motivation and intention, cannot be any interpretant of the sign that is
currently being uttered. Instead, it still seems to me that such determinations
must pertain somehow to the object of that sign,
Jon:
> On Oct 25, 2021, at 2:39 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt
> wrote:
>
> Jerry C., List:
>
> In context, Peirce is plainly referring to phaneroscopy, so "the different
> indecomposable elements" are simply 1ns, 2ns, and 3ns.
Jon: the text in no way addresses such as enormous constraint. One
