h as
> communication between people.
>
>
>
> Gary f.
>
>
>
> From: a.bree...@chello.nl
> Sent: 30-Apr-20 06:46
> To: Jon Alan Schmidt ; peirce-l@list.iupui.edu
> Subject: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Fwd: an observation
>
>
lo.nl
Sent: 30-Apr-20 06:46
To: Jon Alan Schmidt ; peirce-l@list.iupui.edu
Subject: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Fwd: an observation
Jon Alan,
So, we need the intentional and effectual interprretants for the introduction
of different minds, that is we need them in order to get semiotics from a
terminolo
Jon Alan,
So, we need the intentional and effectual interprretants for the introduction
of different minds, that is we need them in order to get semiotics from a
terminological exercize into a semiotic study of communication.
best,
Auke
> Op 30 april 2020 om 2:48 schreef Jon Alan Schmidt :
>
Auke, List:
As I explained at some length, my current view is as follows.
- The intentional interpretant is:
- the dynamical interpretant of a *previous *sign token with the same
dynamical object, because it is a determination of the mind of
the utterer.
- the final interpret
Edwina, Gary R., John, List:
I agree with Edwina that she has *established *her own speculative grammar,
which she believes to be recognizably Peircean, and has sought to apply it
in the special sciences, most notably biology. However, I understand Gary
R.'s point to be that she persistently reje
Sent: 25-Apr-20 08:22
To: 'Peirce-L'
; g...@gnusystems.ca
Subject: Re: RE: [PEIRCE-L] Fwd: an observation
Gary F - please tell me how I am 'blocking the way to inquiry'.
When I am critiqued by JAS when I use the phrase 'dynamic semiosis'
bec
BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}Gary R, list
I'm going to reject your view that I 'oppose almost in principle'
the research known as speculative grammar, which is research into the
nature of a sign as symbol and the nature of symbols ..to their
would only be paraphrasing what I (and Peirce and Susan Haack) said at
http://www.gnusystems.ca/TS/rlb.htm#attend.
Gary f.
From: Edwina Taborsky
Sent: 25-Apr-20 08:22
To: 'Peirce-L' ; g...@gnusystems.ca
Subject: Re: RE: [PEIRCE-L] Fwd: an observation
Gary F - please tell m
Gary F - please tell me how I am 'blocking the way to inquiry'.
When I am critiqued by JAS when I use the phrase 'dynamic semiosis'
because Peirce used the term 'dynamic' in a textual reference to the
dyadic action of Secondness - that response is, in my view 'blocking
the way t
