Joe, Gary, Jim, list,
Well, your response certainly poses a challenge, Joe. I'll try. Then I must
go and, well, eat.
From your transcription from Letter to Lady Welby Dec 23, 1908 (in
_Semiotics and Significs: Correspondence Between Charles S. Peirce and
Victoria Lady Welby_, ed. Charles
Ben, Joe, Jim, list,
Ben, not having gotten your argument for a putative necessary fourth
semeiotic element earlier--and I've certainly tried--your most recent
comments have also not helped me get any closer to what you apparently
find near-obvious, or at least "simple." You write:
[BU] It
Ben:
JR: I must say that I think you are missing
my point because of some mistaken assumption that I can't identify.
The reason I gave the simple example of a common sense verification was to make
as clear as I could that there is no deep logical point involved. Consider
again my simple
Joe, Gary, Jim, list,
I forgot that I had wanted to make a remark on the Pragmatic Maxim in the
present connection.
>[Joe] I forgot to say something about the supposed problem of
distinguishing sense from nonsense. That's what the pragmatic maxim is all
about, isn't it?
The Pragma
Gary, Joe, Jim, list,
(continued, 3rd part)
>[Gary] Again, you maintain that the "logically determinational role" of
"such recognition" cannot be denied and yet I can't even find it! For me it is
less a matter of its being denied than my not even missing it (clearly you've
fixed your own id
Joe, Gary, Jim, list,
>[Joe] Ben Says:
>>[Ben] I don't know how Peirce and others have missed the distinct
and irreducible logical role of verification. I keep an eye open regarding that
question, that's about all. I don't have some hidden opinion on the question.
Tom Short argued that th
Ben:
I forgot to say something about the supposed
problem of distinguishing sense from nonsense. That's what the pragmatic
maxim is all about, isn't it? Tom' Short's take on this has to do
with Peirce's supposed failure to realize that his view of infinite
interpretability entailed an in
Ben Says:
I don't know how Peirce and others have missed
the distinct and irreducible logical role of verification. I keep an eye open
regarding that question, that's about all. I don't have some hidden opinion on
the question. Tom Short argued that there is a problem with answering how it
Ben Udell wrote:
>>Anyway, my semiotic four are, instead, object, sign, interpretant,
recognizant.
I don't know how Peirce and others have missed the distinct and irreducible
logical role of verification. I keep an eye open regarding that question, that's
about all. I don't have some hidd
