Edwina, Jon, List,
I had written in the post to which Edwina responded:
GR: I must admit that since you and I have taken this up in the past and
could come to no agreement on the matter, I've very little hope that we
will this go round.
Jon quoted Edwina, then wrote:
ET: Gary R - thanks for y
Edwina, List:
ET: Gary R - thanks for your reply - but- we are talking about different
things.
I agree--Gary R. is talking about *Peirce's *Semeiotic, and you are talking
about something else. As I said before, this is not merely a *terminological
*difference, it is a *conceptual *difference.
Supplement: I think, confusion comes from jumping the contexts. The context of "rhematic iconic qualisign" is classification of sign composition (categorial), the context of "S-O-I" is functional sign composition (categorial, and so a special kind of -irreducible- triadic relation), and the co
Edwina, list,
I think what you call ordinal has also to do with the categories: "On a new list of categories": 1ns is reference to a ground, 2ns reference to a correlate, 3ns reference to an interpretant. The meanings of ground and correlate are quite close to representamen and object I would say
BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}Gary R - thanks for your reply - but- we are talking about different
things.
When I refer to the triadic Sign, I am referring not to the
mediative Representamen [which can also be referred to as the 'sign]]
but to
BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}JAS - I'm not going to get into a debate, again, with you, on your
view of 'relations' and 'correlates'. We have very different analyses
of 'the Sign'.
I would appreciate Gary R's response. He, after all, was the
Edwina, List:
ET: And besides, I think a big problem is what I see as the confusion
between the triadic Sign [made up of three Relations: that between the
Representamen and the Object; that between the Representamen and the
Interpretant; and that of the Representamen-in-itself]…..with the sign
[l
BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}Gary R, list
I admit to staying strictly out of this recent discussion - for the
basic reason that I'm not interested in terminology - and which term
to use at which time. For me - such an investigation does nothi
Gary R., List:
I am delighted at the prospect of a "peaceful" resolution to this matter,
and only wish to clarify one more thing.
GR: It appears to me that Jon and Gary F are working (on different, but
not unrelated projects) much more in Critical Logic (the second branch of
Semeiotic where, for
Jon, Auke, Gary F, Helmut, List,
Well, I guess I do have a bit more to add to this discussion. Fortunately,
I'm beginning to think that we may not have to "agree to disagree" but may
indeed be on the road to more or less complete agreement. That rarely
happens in this forum, so I suppose I shouldn
Gary R., Auke, Helmut, List:
GR: I did not suggest that "the nature of the Sign itself is *more
significant* than the other two," but that it was *as *significant, and
that it appeared to me that both you and Gary F were minimizing its
significance.
AvB: I do not know where your idea comes form
: peirce-l@list.iupui.edu
Onderwerp: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] The danger of destroying Peirce's semeiotic (was
Ambiguities...
Gary R., List:
GR: Gary's list of "counts of occurrences of the noun and adjectival forms of
icon/iconic, index/indexical/ symbol/symbolic showing that the
Jon, List,
I said that I'd leave you and/or Gary F the last word, but I feel I must
answer this post which asserts that I'm mistaken in my analysis.
Jon wrote:
JAS: My point--and what I take to be Gary F.'s point, as well--is that it
is a mistake to *overemphasize *Peirce's usage of adjectives
Gary R., List:
GR: Gary's list of "counts of occurrences of the noun and adjectival forms
of icon/iconic, index/indexical/ symbol/symbolic showing that the
adjectival form appears less frequently doesn't address the crucial fact
that Peirce wrote:"Signs are divisible by three trichotomies ..."
t;
>> Regards,
>>
>> Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
>> Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman
>> www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
>>
>> On Thu, Mar 28, 2019 at 7:19 PM wrote:
>>
>>&g
s:
>>
>> icon 135, icons 54; iconic 61
>>
>> index 177, indices 76; indexical 33
>>
>> symbol 248, symbols 125; symbolic 27
>>
>> rheme 26, rhemes 3; rhematic 12
>>
>> dicisign 21, dicisigns 7; dicent 18
>>
>> a
irce *never* used an adjective form, as far as I can tell.
>
>
>
> Call it “shorthand” if you like, but if it’s good enough for Peirce, it’s
> good enough for me.
>
> Clearly, for Peirce, an icon is a sign, an index is a sign, and a symbol
> is a sign. And so on.
>
>
>
>
of destroying Peirce's semeiotic (was
Ambiguities...
Gary F, Jon, Helmut,
Gary F quoted Peirce: CP 2.250. According to the third trichotomy, a Sign may
be termed a Rheme, a Dicisign orDicent Sign (that is, a proposition or
quasi-proposition), or an Argument.
But this is "Ac
cisign, it by no means constitutes it.
>
> 252. An *Argument* is a Sign which, for its Interpretant, is a Sign of
> law. ]]
>
>
>
> *From:* Gary Richmond
> *Sent:* 28-Mar-19 16:45
> *To:* Peirce-L
> *Subject:* Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] The danger of destroying Peirce's s
ing. But this is a peculiar kind of Rheme; and
> while it is essential to the Dicisign, it by no means constitutes it.
>
> 252. An *Argument* is a Sign which, for its Interpretant, is a Sign of
> law. ]]
>
>
>
> *From:* Gary Richmond
> *Sent:* 28-Mar-19 16:45
> *To:*
RCE-L] The danger of destroying Peirce's semeiotic (was
Ambiguities...
Helmut, Jon, Gary F,
For each and every of the 10 sign classes given at EP2:296, "Nomenclature and
Division of Triadic Relations," for example, the central sign class in the
triangle, Rhematic Indexical
Corrigendum: I meant to address my last post also to Auke. GR
*Gary Richmond*
*Philosophy and Critical Thinking*
*Communication Studies*
*LaGuardia College of the City University of New York*
On Thu, Mar 28, 2019 at 4:45 PM Gary Richmond
wrote:
> Helmut, Jon, Gary F,
>
> For each and every o
Helmut, Jon, Gary F,
For each and every of the 10 sign classes given at EP2:296, "Nomenclature
and Division of Triadic Relations," for example, the central sign class in
the triangle, Rhematic Indexical Legisign, the first term refers to the
relation of the sign to its Interpretant, the second to
Helmut,
No, Jon has it exactly right. Study the “Nomenclature and Division of Triadic
Relations” (in EP2 or CP) and you’ll see.
Gary f.
From: Helmut Raulien
Sent: 28-Mar-19 15:09
Jon, Auke, list,
isnt it so, that in the context of sign classification a sign is either a
quali-, sin-
24 matches
Mail list logo
