Aw: [PEIRCE-L] Interpretants, Sign Classification, and 3ns (was Who, What, When, Where, How, and Why)

2024-02-16 Thread Helmut Raulien
Jon, John, List,   The answer "A brooch" looks like a rheme, but as an answer it is a proposition, as "he gives her" is just omitted for the reason, that both know this opening. A triadic proposition, I think, if not already is an argument, at least involves a "because". For example if you say;

Aw: [PEIRCE-L] Interpretants, Sign Classification, and 3ns (was Who, What, When, Where, How, and Why)

2024-02-15 Thread Helmut Raulien
    Supplement: Ok, I can access Commens Dictionary again!   John, List,   The answer to "why", "because" always needs two premisses, with itself being the third. So a thirdness is the answer to "why". Firstness can just say "I". Secondness is a second following a first, and so can say "I

Aw: [PEIRCE-L] Interpretants, Sign Classification, and 3ns (was Who, What, When, Where, How, and Why)

2024-02-15 Thread Helmut Raulien
John, List,   The answer to "why", "because" always needs two premisses, with itself being the third. So a thirdness is the answer to "why". Firstness can just say "I". Secondness is a second following a first, and so can say "I am". Obviously, just by having a first for predecessor, not because

Aw: [PEIRCE-L] Interpretants

2024-02-02 Thread Helmut Raulien
  Supplement: My looking for a simple generator of the theory is not intended, because I would like it. In fact i think, that simple explanations are dangerous. Autocrats and conspiracy theorists frequently use them. The technical term is complexity reduction. If a complex matter is said to have

Aw: [PEIRCE-L] Interpretants

2024-02-02 Thread Helmut Raulien
Jon, List,    we have three classes of context, in which we "either-or-or" divide the interpretant into   -immediate, dynamical, final   -emotional, energetic, logical   -intentional, effectual, communicational.   Maybe these threee classes of context are categorially 1ns, 2ns, 3ns?  

Aw: [PEIRCE-L] Interpretants

2024-02-01 Thread Helmut Raulien
John, List,   I vaguely remember, that at some point in the last weeks, somebody quoted somebody, who said, that the theory is more complicated than the reality it is for. I think, it (the theory) is a fractal. A fractal looks very complicated, but it has a very simple generator formula (like