Dear Jeff,
This response is much delayed. I apologize for that. As one of the few
literary members of the list, I'd like to offer some suggestions. (I
too am a fan of Emerson and Whitman.) You may want to look at Joan
Richardson's The Fact of Feeling: American Aesthetics, in REAL:
There is more to be said on the
"sign"/"representamen" distinction, but it will involve appeal to textual
material not in the Collected Papers in which he says that he doesn't need that
distinction after all, and I can't find it in my notes immediately.I won't
be able to work on that
Steven
I agree with you in being unable to find what Frances is saying
intelligible, but I want to take the occasion to ask you what you mean by
immediacy, which seems to have a special meaning in your writings which is
of special importance to you that I don't understand.
Joe Ransdell
Peirce's version of the proof for Cantor's theorem can be mapped in a quite
straightforward way to the structure of the New List of 1867. At the same
time
the proof of Cantor's theorem can be extended by continued diagonalization
(which latter, by the way, Peirce discovered not later than 1867
Thomas, list,
Peirce's version of the proof for Cantor's theorem can be mapped in a quite
straightforward way to the structure of the New List of 1867. At the same
time the proof of Cantor's theorem can be extended by continued
diagonalization (which latter, by the way, Peirce discovered
Frances to Joseph and listers...
If representamens and signs are held to be separate and distinct,
this will certainly make the world more complex and its field of
logical study more complicated, and perhaps needlessly so. For now, my
task is to carefully read all the passages from the Peircean
Frances to listers...
The arbitrary use of my concocted term signer in messages has
generated some interest. It is used merely to identify the thing that
structures or employs an object as a sign. The search for some proper
term in the widest sense had caused me some irritating frustration.
When
Thomas,If you don't mind my asking, what's wrong with the nonstandard analysis approach to illustrating continuum, so long as that approach is VERY nonstandard? I was quite convinced by Hilary Putnam's introduction to Reasoning and the Logic of Things. Putnam suggests that rather than
Dear Joe,
Immediacy is a property of all metaphysical marks - marks for which
intent exists. Recall that in my model intent is exactly the embodied
experience in semeiosis of the creator of the mark in its creation.
Immediacy is the description, in a point of semeiosis, of the temporal
Joe
I also discovered this a few days ago, but didn't say anything because I figured I was just being dumb ...
Anyway: the G-mail spam filter is pretty powerful, so I'm making it a habit of checking it 2-3 times a week from now on, because it's easier to get the right stuff back from the spam
10 matches
Mail list logo
