inte-Anne, Canada
>
>
>
> *De :* marty.rob...@neuf.fr
> *Envoyé :* 28 septembre 2018 10:08
> *À :* Jon Alan Schmidt ; List <
> peirce-l@list.iupui.edu>
> *Objet :* Re: Re: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Terminology of Peirce's final sign
> classification
>
>
>
have worked with Robert!!
James Crombie
Philosophie/Sciences humaines
Université Sainte-Anne, Canada
De : marty.rob...@neuf.fr
Envoyé : 28 septembre 2018 10:08
À : Jon Alan Schmidt ; List
Objet : Re: Re: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Terminology of Peirce's final sign
classification
Jon Alan, list
mathematical
way."
C.S. PEIRCE, MS 283 (v.1905)
Best regards,
Robert Marty
De : "Jon
Alan Schmidt"
A : peirce-l@list.iupui.edu
Envoyé: jeudi 27 septembre 2018 20:46
Objet : ***SPAM*** Re: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Terminology of Peirce's final sign
classification
Mats, Jeff,
ly these terms. It is of course always difficult to say how
> much weight one should place on a single letter; but in recent discussions
> concerning semiotic matters, much has also been made of provisional remarks
> and classifications found in Peirce’s notebooks.
>
>
>
> All best,
>
&
From: Jeffrey Brian Downard
Sent: 26 September 2018 20:13
To: Peirce-L
Subject: Re: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Terminology of Peirce's final sign
classification
List,
Mats Bergman has written a review of Franceco's monograph. Here is a link
in case you are interested:
https://ndpr.nd.edu/news/pei
From: Gary Richmond
Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2018 10:56 AM
To: Peirce-L
Subject: Re: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Terminology of Peirce's final sign
classification
Jeff, Robert, Jon S, Francesco, List,
Jeff,
This is very helpful, perhaps especially this
Gary R., Jeff, List:
I am familiar with the debate between Lalor and Short, and have always
found the latter more persuasive. For one thing, I find it misleading to
imply that Peirce employed Emotional/Energetic/Logical earlier (not 1906
but 1907, in "Pragmatism") and Immediate/Dynamic/Final
for the interpretation of every sign.
>
>
> --Jeff
>
>
> Jeffrey Downard
> Associate Professor
> Department of Philosophy
> Northern Arizona University
> (o) 928 523-8354
> ----------
> *From:* Jon Alan Schmidt
> *Sent:* Monday, September 24, 20
essor
Department of Philosophy
Northern Arizona University
(o) 928 523-8354
From: Jon Alan Schmidt
Sent: Monday, September 24, 2018 11:13:58 AM
To: peirce-l@list.iupui.edu
Subject: Re: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Terminology of Peirce's final sign
classification
Robert, Li
Robert, List:
How can our understanding of the different correlates be "superfluous" to
the classification of Signs accordingly? For one thing, the
internal/external distinction helps explain why there are additional
trichotomies for the (external) relations between the Sign and the Dynamic
edu
Envoyé: dimanche 23 septembre 2018 22:36
Objet : ***SPAM*** Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Terminology of Peirce's final sign
classification
Robert, List:
All of the trichotomies are divisions into the Universes of
Possibles, Existents, and Necessitants. I only distinguish "Mode of
Prese
Robert, List:
All of the trichotomies are divisions into the *Universes *of Possibles,
Existents, and Necessitants. I only distinguish "Mode of Presentation"
from "Mode of Being" because *Peirce *clearly did so.
CSP: The ten respects according to which the chief divisions of signs are
Regards,
Robert Marty
Professeur Honoraire, PhD Mathematics, PhD Humanities, Free Thinker
De : "Jon
Alan Schmidt"
A : peirce-l@list.iupui.edu
Envoyé: samedi 22 septembre 2018 23:42
Objet : ***SPAM*** Re: [PEIRCE-L] Terminology of Peirce's final sign
classification
Robert,
Robert, List:
Thanks for your comments, and for joining the List discussion.
RM: Od->Oi->S-->Ii-->Id->If
I disagree. The Destinate Interpretant is what the Sign is *destined *to
signify at the end of infinite inquiry by an infinite community; i.e.,
the *Final
On 9/22/2018 10:59 AM, marty.rob...@neuf.fr wrote:
/It is evident that a possible can determine nothing but a Possible,
it is equally so that a Necessitant can be determined by nothing but
a Necessitant./
Thank you for that reminder (EP 2.481). In an earlier note on
another topic, I
ert Marty
De : "Jon
Alan Schmidt"
A : peirce-l@list.iupui.edu
Envoyé: jeudi 20 septembre 2018 23:06
Objet : ***SPAM*** Re: [PEIRCE-L] Terminology of Peirce's final sign
classification
Robert, List:
My apologies to all for the accidental post when I first started drafting
this re
Robert, List:
My apologies to all for the accidental post when I first started drafting
this reply. I was doing some reformatting and clicked on the "Send" button
by mistake.
I agree that Peirce used "replica" only for Legisigns in his 1903 taxonomy,
such that his classification at that time
Robert, List:
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman
www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
On Thu, Sep 20, 2018 at 12:10 PM, wrote:
> List,
>
> Robert Marty addressed this post to me and to the
Gary F., List:
It was brought to my attention off-List that I inadvertently sent my last
post in this thread to Gary F., rather than to the List as intended. Since
his comments below are interspersed with mine, I will not bother to repeat
the latter.
GF: The date of the note is of no
List,
Robert Marty addressed this post to me and to the list, but apparently didn’t
send it to the list address, so I’m forwarding it here. It contains some
important comments on Peirce’s use of the term “replica.” Thank you, Robert!
Gary f.
From: marty.rob...@neuf.fr
Jon, a few brief responses inserted:
From: Jon Alan Schmidt
Sent: 19-Sep-18 13:07
Gary F., List:
I was not previously aware of Peirce's marginal note about "Replica," so thank
you for bringing it to my attention; the CP editors dated it "c. 1910," not
1904. He used "Replica" quite
of a
“sign-vehicle.”
Gary f.
From: Jon Alan Schmidt
Sent: 18-Sep-18 21:07
To: peirce-l@list.iupui.edu
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Terminology of Peirce's final sign classification
Gary R., List:
I agree with your comments about Atkins's unfortunate take on the trichotomy
according to the Sign
Gary R., List:
I agree with your comments about Atkins's unfortunate take on the
trichotomy according to the Sign itself. It certainly does not pertain to
"the Sign-Vehicle," since this is a term that Peirce himself never used.
The closest that he came was when he wrote in an unidentified
List,
For those who may not be familiar with the trichotomic terminology of
Peirce's last classification of signs or who wish to refresh their
memories, I've copied a portion of Albert Atkins 2010 article, "Peirce's
Theory of Signs" in the *Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy* as perhaps an
aid
24 matches
Mail list logo
