Forum peirce-l@lyris.ttu.edu
Subject: [peirce-l] Re: reduction of the manifold to unity
Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2006 10:19:31 -0700 (PDT)
Just now getting arond to addressing your question of several days ago,
Jim: you formulate it towards the end of your message as follows:
JP: I don't see how a sign
Joe, Jim
What Joe has said in his response to Jim of Sept 12, seems to reflect something that may have arisen from Peirce's early exposure to philosophy: his reading of Schiller's _Aesthetic Letters_. In writing up a report on cultural impacts in occupational health and safety, I found myself
REPLY:
I would say that his theory of representation has to be capable of
articulating that distinction or there is something wrong with it, but I don't
think that it is to be looked for merely in the distinction between the dyadic
and the triadic but rather in something to
er 9, 2006 1:44:02 PMSubject: [peirce-l] Re: "reduction of the manifold to unity"
Dear Joe,
Thanks for your informal and very helpful response. I think I was misunderstanding the introductory passage in the New List.So I have a few more questions.First some background. My understanding
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
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
ofst
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
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
Dear Joe,
Thanks for your informal and very helpful
response. I think I was misunderstanding the introductory passage in the
New List.So I have a few more questions.First some
background. My understanding is that signs refer to and stand for the
meaning of objects. In standing for
Great
question, Jim!I can't even get started on an answer today, but I
will be at work on it tomorrow and try to get at least a start at an anwer
before the day is out.
Joe
Oh thanks Joe. I'm relieved to hear
that! Reflecting a bit more I see that I should have
10 matches
Mail list logo