[peirce-l] Re: First, second, third, etc.

Gary, no hard feelings! everything is fine. /JM --- Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber archive@mail-archive.com

[peirce-l] Re: First, second, third, etc.

Jean-Marc, List, I suppose that one is permitted one additional word after he has granted his opponent the *last word* in a matter, but only if he might want to confirm something his interlocutor has said and where he has come to see that he was wrong. Jean-Marc wrote: my comments have been

[peirce-l] Re: First, second, third, etc.

Dear Gary. Thanks foryourgenerous and kind words.You inspire me to try to follow your example of courage and good will. Cheers, Jim Piat PS -- it's a third you damn blockhead! --- Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber archive@mail-archive.com

[peirce-l] Re: First, second, third, etc.

Jim, Thanks for your lovely notes. But what in the hell does this mean? PS  -- it's a third you damn blockhead!    Best, Gary Jim Piat wrote: Dear Gary.   Thanks for your generous and kind words.   You inspire me to try to follow your example of courage and good

[peirce-l] Re: First, second, third, etc.

l] Re: First, second, third, etc. Jim, Thanks for your lovely notes. But what in the hell does this mean? PS -- it's a third you damn blockhead!Best,Gary --- Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber archive@mail-archive.com

[peirce-l] Re: First, second, third, etc.

ause, lead us to success in such matters. It may be that we will fail, but at least we will have tried in good faith and camaraderie. Best, Gary   Best wishes, Jim Piat - Original Message - From: Gary Richmond To: Peirce Discussion Forum Sent: Mon

[peirce-l] Re: First, second, third, etc.

Jean-Marc Orliaguet wrote: Here is an article that I scanned some time ago, it was written by Andre de Tienne: http://www.medic.chalmers.se/~jmo/semiotic/Peirce_s_semiotic_monism.pdf the first page is missing, but I think than anyone interested in signs and in triadic relations should

[peirce-l] Re: First, second, third, etc.

Bernard Morand wrote: Jean-Marc Orliaguet wrote: Here is an article that I scanned some time ago, it was written by Andre de Tienne: http://www.medic.chalmers.se/~jmo/semiotic/Peirce_s_semiotic_monism.pdf the first page is missing, but I think than anyone interested in signs and in

[peirce-l] Re: First, second, third, etc.

I am appalled at the fact that one can confuse these two aspects, it reveals a complete misunderstanding of Peirce's categories. You' are "appalled" at certain scholars' "complete misunderstanding of  Peirce's categories." That is to say, you have closed your mind to anything but your own