Gary Richmond wrote:
Ben, list,
It seems to me that you are quite right about the "distinctly
un-English" use of the ordinals 'First', 'Second' and 'Third' by
Peirce in the passages being considered. Capitalization is used for
'terms defined' as he writes, for example, at the beginning of th
Joseph Ransdell wrote:
Here is a verifying passage:, from the neglected Argument paper
Peirce: CP 6.452
The word "God," so "capitalized" (as we Americans say), is the
definable proper name, signifying Ens necessarium; in my belief Really
creator of all three Universes of Experience.
Benjamin Udell wrote:
Aw Jim, you're a trouble maker!
66~~
*A _Sign_, or _Representamen_, is a First which stands in such genuine triadic relation to a Second, called its _Object_, as to be capable of detemining a Third, called its _Interpretant, to assume the same
...the lattice of the ten classes of signs :
http://www.univ-perp.fr/see/rch/lts/marty/lattices/Lattice-CP.rtf
Please consider that this argumentation is a partial response to several
questions recently discussed. I cannot react with the necessary quickness at
the time all the more reason that I
Where does Peirce talk about an "immediate representamen" (or an "immediate
sign")? I can't think of any use he would have for such a term.
Joe Ransdell
- Original Message -
From: "Frances Kelly" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Peirce Discussion Forum"
Sent: Thursday, June 22, 2006 9:17 PM
Ben wrote:
Aw Jim, you're a trouble maker!
66~~
*A _Sign_, or _Representamen_, is a First which stands in such genuine
triadic relation to a Second, called its _Object_, as to be capable of
detemining a Third, called its _Interpretant, to assume the same triadic
relation to its Ob
Benjamin,
In the discourse below, I think the cause of your problems in reasoning are
at least partly caused by misinterpretation of the qualisigns and further
aspects of the sign you are talking about at that moment. Well actually that
seems to be a logical conclusion, but I just want to say...th
Frances to Joseph and listers...
The decagon table does not seem to deal with signs as representamens
explicitly. The decagon of course does deal with immediate objects
and dynamic objects and one immediate interpretant. If it did deal
with representamens, it is reasonable to me that such represen
Jim, Ben, List,
Jim Piat wrote:
Yes, but Peirce also wrote (chapter 20 Trichotomic of The
Essential Peirce Vol 1 page 281 line two of paragraph two) that "A
sign is a third mediating between the mind addressed and the object
represented".
So I find this confusing.
There are so many
PS I should have added this excerpt in relation to the TRICHOTOMIC
passage as it reminds us that categorial Thirdness == mediation and
that all three elements in a genuine trichotomic relationship mediate
between the other two in some sense.
CP 1.328 I. . .. Thirdness, in the sense of the
cate
Gary Richmond wrote:
...btw, do you or anyone else
know of any other place where he refers to 'sign' as a third?) I know
only of this one, which I think may illuminate the passage being
considered in so far as Peirce notes that "in genuine Thirdness, the
first, the second, and the third
Dear Joe and Frances,
This is not directly to your concerns but may be of some related interest:
On page 106 of Volume 1 of the Essential Peirce (chapter 6 --On a New Class
of Observations, Suggested by the Principles of Logic) I find the following
Peirce QUOTE:
"It is usually admited th
Jim, List,
I would like to try a comment on the relation between this two
quotes:
1. "A _Sign_, or _Representamen_, is a First which stands in such
genuine triadic relation to a Second, called its _Object_, as to be capable
of determining a Third, called its _Interpretant..." (CP 2.274)
and
Jim, List,
I would like to try a comment on the relation between this two
quotes:
1. "A _Sign_, or _Representamen_, is a First which stands in such
genuine triadic relation to a Second, called its _Object_, as to be
capable of determining a Third, called its _Interpretant..
14 matches
Mail list logo
