[peirce-l] Re: reduction of the manifold to unity

Title: [peirce-l] Re: reduction of the manifold to unity Jim, At first glance, your comment gives me the impression that you are psychologizing semiosis by introducing the sign user (and his consciousness) into the equation. (Something Charles Morris will do). I don't have ready access to the

[peirce-l] Re: reduction of the manifold to unity

Title: [peirce-l] Re: "reduction of the manifold to unity" Dear Martin, Thanks for these comments. You may well be right that I am introducingan unnecessarypsychological overlay to my account of representation.What follows aresome of my initialthoughts as I beginthe process ofstudyingyour

[peirce-l] Re: reduction of the manifold to unity

Title: [peirce-l] Re: "reduction of the manifold to unity" Dear Folks --I apologizefor mistakenly including all those prior posts in my last post! Jim Piat --- Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber archive@mail-archive.com

[peirce-l] Re: reduction of the manifold to unity

Title: [peirce-l] Re: reduction of the manifold to unity Dear Jim, I understand (or think I do) your qualm about the distinction between reacting and interpreting. But just as much as Peirce distinguished between conduct and though only in matters of degree (thought for him is a form of conduct