If I may, I’d like to move on to some a posteriori reasoning (i.e. evidence from the “positive sciences” of phenomenology, neuropsychology and biology) that seems to support aspects of Peirce’s category-based semeiotics.
Helmut, some time ago you expressed some skepticism about my remark in a post that perceived objects are “artifacts of analysis” just as signs are. I didn’t have the time to clarify what I meant back then, but perhaps I can make up for that now, by offering this link: https://gnusystems.ca/TS/scp.htm#csptd . I’m sure that 1906 passage has been cited here before (probably by JAS), but not the neurobiological work that supports it, which begins here: https://gnusystems.ca/TS/sdg.htm#x13 . That passage from Turning Signs also links to the one above. Love, gary f Coming from the ancestral lands of the Anishinaabeg
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ► PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to [email protected] . ► <a href="mailto:[email protected]";>UNSUBSCRIBE FROM PEIRCE-L</a> . But, if your subscribed email account is not your default email account, then go to https://list.iu.edu/sympa/signoff/peirce-l . ► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary Richmond; and co-managed by him and Ben Udell.
