Helmut - you asked:
Do you think, that also an immediate interpretant and a final one
may become a dynamical object? My guess is, that immediate
interpretants become concepts, dynamical interpretants become
material things, and final interpretants become topics that have
happened or be
Helmut - yes, my apologies, you are quite right about the benefits
of using different terms. My problem was that I wasn't sure what YOU
meant by the term 'fact'.
Edwina
--
This message is virus free, protected by Primus - Canada's
largest alternative telecommunications provider.
Claudio - I'm not sure if I would agree that we can never change the
Dynamic Object. Since semiosis is an interactive and continuous
process, then I would say that our semiosic interactions are
continuously changing 'that with which we interact'.
As an example, if I take a spri
Edwina, Helmut, List,
I think that a very good aspect of Peirce's proposal is that there is no
'THE TRUTH' anymore.
Signs can only construct other signs (images, texts, speeches,etc.),
perhaps, sometimes, "a more developed sign" (CP 2.228).
But never a definitive 'final explanation'... and this
