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

2006-09-14 Thread shekhar veera
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

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

2006-09-13 Thread Arnold Shepperson
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

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

2006-09-13 Thread Jim Piat
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

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

2006-09-12 Thread Joseph Ransdell
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

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

2006-09-10 Thread martin lefebvre
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

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

2006-09-10 Thread Jim Piat
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

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

2006-09-10 Thread Jim Piat
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

2006-09-10 Thread martin lefebvre
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

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

2006-09-09 Thread Jim Piat
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

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

2006-09-09 Thread Jim Piat
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