Steven,
Frances and I have very different views on most everything concerned
with Peirce. I hope you will resist conflating our views.
Steven Ericsson Zenith wrote:
Mostly I think the deconstruction of Peirce's writings concerning
representamen / sign is a waste of time and simply unable to
Dear List,
I was hoping to keep out of this. Mostly I think the deconstruction of
Peirce's writings concerning representamen / sign is a waste of time and
simply unable to produce any meaningful result.
This message by Frances simply makes no sense to me. How do you,
Frances or Gary, propos
Neither Theresa nor I
disagree with what you are saying about the vernacular word "sign"
being more narrow in scope of application than the word "representamen"
Here we seem to be in agreement (there is a small question about "the
vernacular word" however).
and I assume you
agree that
Frances, Gary, Steven, Joe, Theresa, list,
I've taken a while to respond to this, partly because I've been busy, and
partly because I wished, despite my difficulty in understanding it, to be
responsive to it. I admit I've simplified my task by only briefly skimming all
the posts that have follo
Neither Theresa nor I disagree
with what you are saying about the vernacular word "sign" being more narrow in
scope of application than the word "representamen" and I assume you agree that
there are several quotations which make clear that he regards the one as a
technical explication of the
Frances to Theresa...
You partly wrote that for Peirce the word "representamen" is more a
technical term than the word "sign" at least within logical contexts.
One thorn here is whether "signs" in some extended nonlogical sense
are to be admitted or allowed in the nonhuman biotic arena, or even i
Gary...
Thanks for your search and post.
As you implied, the distinction attempted to be made by me is in deed
the difference between "representamens" that are broader and prior to
all else in the world, including existent objects and "signs" and
semiosis, and that are independent of thought and m
Joe, Frances, and List,
Joseph Ransdell wrote:
I can only say that I
find Frances's usage of words so idiosyncratic in sentence after
sentence that I cannot figure out any way to restate her view in
sentences that make any sense to me.
Perhaps because at one point several years ago I s
Theresa, Frances & List,
Certainly Peirce at moments & in places suggests that there may be
representamen which are not signs, probably the clearest &
simplest example being
that famous sunflower.
CP 2.274. . .A Sign is a Representamen with a
mental Interpretant. Possibly there may be Represen
As a psychiatrist and psychotherapist I know the
name of Alfred Korzybski and I am interested in his work. I appreciate very much
the idea of the gap between verbal and non-verbal thought, and I think that it
is actually a one of the main gaps present in human mind. His definition is
importa
Frances, and list:
Frances, you say: "In
my guess, it may be that for Peirce in the evolution of things
"representamens" are more say monadic or dyadic and primitive then
"signs" where objects that act as "signs" require them to be say
triadic and the "thought" of organisms, while "representamens
A string search of "representamen or representamen's or representamens
or representamina" in the electronic CP yields the following passages (I
have not included comments by the editors of the CP). Note that what
follows are in most cases the complete paragraphs in which the terms
occur, but in
Frances to Joseph Ransdell and listers...
You replied partly in effect that the distinction between "sign" and
"representamen" for Peirce in his writings is indifferent. You stated
that the word "representamen" was likely introduced by Peirce as the
name for his refined conception of the word "sig
Gary, Frances, and
list:
I can only say that I find
Frances's usage of words so idiosyncratic in sentence after sentence that I
cannot figure out any way to restate her view in sentences that make any sense
to me. I thought perhaps there might be some one misunderstanding that
would acco
Joe, Frances, list:
Joe, thanks for your response as it points to an aspect of the cause of
my "strongly worded rhetoric," as Steven phrased it, which I did not
address in my comments to him and which I refrained from adding to
those comments precisely since you had not by then responded. As
a
I've read _Science and Sanity_. I think the book would have
been difficult to avoid for anyone educated in the fifties
with a degree of intellectual curiosity . He is vastly
better than any of his popularizers--S. I. Hayakawa, Stuart
Chase, etc. (As I recall, Max Black's has an excellent
cr
List,
Here's the opening and conclusion of a New York Times article today on
an aspect of the subject of this thread.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/12/business/yourmoney/12digi.html?ex=1142830800&en=30176f24d523ea78&ei=5070&emc=eta1
March 12, 2006 The New York Times
Digital Domain: Anonym
Gary, Frances, and
list:
I think I was sloppy in my
statement, Gary, which was not intended as a general attack on Frances's views
but was a comment on what she is saying in a particular message. I regret
not making that clear. I could be mistaken about what was happening that I
was obj
and how Whitman's poetic practice might
profit from a
"Peircean" reading.
Dear Jeff,
This caught my attention. So I says to myself, what is a Peircean
reading. And just now all I can think of is an attention to quality (form),
reaction (such as a poke in the ribs) and continuity. And wh
Dear Wilfred Berendsen,Unfortunately, I have only heard of Korzybski by reading Gregory Bateson, e.g., Steps to an Ecology of Mind, and Mind and Nature
. Peter Harries-Jones, p. 67 in his book A Recursive Vision: Ecological Understanding and Gregory Bateson, Toronto University Press (1995) notes th
Steven Ericsson Zenith wrote:
I must confess to being a little bewildered by Gary's strongly worded
rhetoric - nothing against Ben or Frances but the case does seem to be
overstated fro my POV.
What case? Overstated how? I have been severely critical of positions
held by Frances as well as
Dear list,
I have some relevant questions that I am wondering
about to the people on this list.
The question are the following:
1) How
many people on this list actually heard of the name Alfred Korzybski?
2) How
many people actually really read his book “science and sanit
22 matches
Mail list logo
