At 11:26 AM 5/6/2015, Frederik Stjernfelt wrote:
Did I not already answer
this? (below)
I do not think Peircean semiotics avoids that question.
I think it avoids the subject-object terminology in order not to
import anthropocentric conceptions from German
idealism.
HP: Yes, Frederik, that was
Howard,
How about interpreting matter as effete mind of Peirce in one of the
following two ways, regardless of whether or not Peirce thought so:
(i) matter is necessary for mind, and
(ii) matter is sufficient for mind.
The former thesis may be called the matter-is-necessary-for-mind view of
