.@list.iupui.edu On
Behalf Of Jon Alan Schmidt
Sent: 31-Oct-21 21:05
To: Peirce-L
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] A key principle of normative semeiotic for interpreting
texts
Gary F., List:
GF: So when you refer to the three interpretants of the one sign, you are
thinking of “type” and “toke
Gary F., List:
GF: So when you refer to the three interpretants of the *one sign*, you are
thinking of “type” and “token” as *aspects of the one sign*, not as
different signs ...
Although I would not call them "aspects," this is basically where I landed
after wrestling for a while with the ambig
Jon, list,
Yes, objective time is continuous, so everything that takes time should be continuous too. Objective means, that it is a matter of the universe, the complete sign. So maybe discontinuities are not objective, but subjective, e.g. when you are in a conversation, and then the telephone
iupui.edu <mailto:peirce-l-requ...@list.iupui.edu> On
Behalf Of Jon Alan Schmidt
Sent: 30-Oct-21 12:28
To: Peirce-L
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] A key principle of normative semeiotic for interpreting
texts
Gary F., List:
GF: I was referring not to the metaphysical priorities but to the metho
Helmut, List:
It occurred to me today that another way in which the real process of
semiosis is continuous is that it always takes time. There is no such thing
as an instantaneous sign--uttering any actual sign token requires a finite
lapse of time, and interpreting any actual sign token requires
Gary F., List:
GF: I was referring not to the metaphysical priorities but to the
methodical focus on “individual signs” as opposed to the sign-systems made
of “connected signs.”
As I see it, any sign-system comprised of connected signs must be treated
as *one sign* in order to talk meaningfully
nly
replicable, not translatable, and an interpretant is a kind of translation, in
my view. But maybe this is nothing but a terminological quibble.
Gary f.
From: peirce-l-requ...@list.iupui.edu On
Behalf Of Jon Alan Schmidt
Sent: 29-Oct-21 13:59
To: Peirce-L
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] A key pr
Helmut, List:
What I have been suggesting is that the entire universe is *one sign* in
the sense that it is a vast, ongoing process of *continuous *semiosis. Any
"individual" sign within it that we mark off for analysis, such that we can
then attempt to sort out its two objects and three interpret
Jon, Gary, List,
I do not understand, how analysis is arbitrary. Neither do I understand, what the continuity-claim is, besides a mantra. It e.g. has been agreed some time, that induction is based on rational numbers, whose row is not a continuum. To say, that discontinuous individual signs are
Gary F., List:
GF: I was thinking that my top-down approach to these issues (based loosely
on the “connected signs theorem” and your post on “Semiosic Synechism”)
would turn out to be complementary to your bottom-up approach in this
thread, analogous to the complementary views of light as waves an
u...@list.iupui.edu On
Behalf Of Jon Alan Schmidt
Sent: 28-Oct-21 15:54
To: Peirce-L
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] A key principle of normative semeiotic for interpreting
texts
Gary F., List:
GF: Peirce does not say in CP 4.551 that the two minds are welded in the
uttered sign itself.
JAS: T
Gary F., List:
GF: Peirce does not say in CP 4.551 that the two minds are welded in the
uttered sign itself.
JAS: To what other sign could he be referring in that passage?
GF: I’ll quote the entire passage below, but first we have to resolve the
ambiguity introduced with the term "uttered sign.
Jon AS, List,
GF: Peirce does not say in CP 4.551 that the two minds are welded in the
uttered sign itself.
JAS: To what other sign could he be referring in that passage?
GF: I’ll quote the entire passage below, but first we have to resolve the
ambiguity introduced with the term “uttered sign
Gary F., List:
GF: Peirce does not say in CP 4.551 that the two minds are welded in
the *uttered
*sign itself.
To what other sign could he be referring in that passage? Every sign has a
quasi-utterer and a quasi-interpreter, and those two quasi-minds are at one
in the sign itself--namely, the sp
the in this rarified atmosphere of abstractions, so I’d better stop now
before I expire.
Gary f.
From: Gary Richmond
Sent: 26-Oct-21 17:50
To: Peirce-L
Cc: Gary Fuhrman ; Jon Alan Schmidt
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] A key principle of normative semeiotic for interpreting
texts
Gary F, Jon
ical interpretant is different for each
> interpreter because connecting the same uttered sign with a different
> interpreter's mind results in a system that constitutes a different new
> sign.
>
> Gary f.
>
>
>
> *From:* peirce-l-requ...@list.iupui.edu *On
>
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 specific
constitutes a different new sign.
Gary f.
From: peirce-l-requ...@list.iupui.edu On
Behalf Of Jon Alan Schmidt
Sent: 25-Oct-21 19:04
To: Peirce-L
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] A key principle of normative semeiotic for interpreting
texts
Gary F., Helmut, List:
Your longer Peirce quotation belo
Gary F., Helmut, List:
Your longer Peirce quotation below brings to mind his famous opening
remarks in "The Fixation of Belief"--"Few persons care to study logic,
because everybody conceives himself to be proficient enough in the art of
reasoning already. But I observe that this satisfaction is li
o work toward it.
Gary f.
} A journey of a thousand miles starts under one's feet. [Tao Te Ching 64 (Feng/English) {
https://gnusystems.ca/wp/ }{ living the time
From: peirce-l-requ...@list.iupui.edu On Behalf Of Jon Alan Schmidt
Sent: 24-Oct-21 16:34
To: Peirce-L
Subject: Re:
stems.ca/wp/ }{ living the time
From: peirce-l-requ...@list.iupui.edu On
Behalf Of Jon Alan Schmidt
Sent: 24-Oct-21 16:34
To: Peirce-L
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] A key principle of normative semeiotic for interpreting
texts
Gary F., List:
I apologize for the length of this post, but t
Gary F., List:
I apologize for the length of this post, but the thread is already getting
a lot of my wheels turning.
GF: The Immediate/Dynamic/Final triad of interpretants may be the basic one
for logic, but that doesn't render the other triads useless.
I agree, and I have even written a paper
ective. For a synechist semiotician, then, there should
> be no problem seeing an Intentional Interpretant as *also* an Immediate
> Interpretant internal to the sign. The “boundaries” between signs, like
> those between organisms and their environments, are permeable by nature.
>
&g
BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}Robert, list
That's an excellent outline of the triad and the definition of the
Representamen. and of the Intentional Interpretant and the need for
the Commens. And by the way, this section from Peirce includes a
d
Re: [PEIRCE-L] A key principle of normative semeiotic for interpreting
texts
Gary R., List:
I fully agree.
GR: If we abandon this ideal of objectivity -- which, of course, can never be
perfectly or exactly realized -- we are left with nothing that serves as a
standard for assessing ac
Gary R, List,
I refer to the definition of the representamen (the number 76 of
https://arisbe.sitehost.iu.edu/rsources/76DEFS/76defs.HTM) resituated in
its original broader context on page 34 of MS 1345:
MS1345_034
*",entation[1] <#_ftn1> ; **and an object which forms one of such
Gary R., List:
I fully agree.
GR: If we abandon this ideal of objectivity -- which, of course, can never
be perfectly or exactly realized -- we are left with nothing that serves as
a *standard* for assessing actual interpretations.
Again, the ultimate standard for different *dynamical* interpre
List,
To incorrectly, in my opinion, define 'representamen' as 'the mediative
node' -- for example, as the 'function' that transforms 'input' into
'output' -- effectively assigns the role of mediating between the object
and interpretant to the* interpreter* rather than to the *sign*.
This, in tur
28 matches
Mail list logo
