Re: Gary Fuhrman
At: http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/13858
Gary,
I already apologized for my dull-wittedness in reading too rigidly your summary of Frederik's
position and I tried to explain what it was that clanged in my disbelieving but most likely
mishearing ears. That was in my reply to Ben, here:
http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/13855
I suppose it was a mistake on my part to react so strongly to one person's summary of another
person's position, but I guess it caught me by surprise. If by "symbolic" one means nothing more
than "that which I choose to regard as a symbol for the nonce" and otherwise otherwise, then I can
see no problem with that, so long as the interpretive nature of the classification is acknowledged.
Whether Peirce makes it clear in a given text or not, I think it follows from the body of his work
that any moderately complex propositional expression is bound to have symbols among its components.
Old timers on the List will that we are broaching here the can of worms known as "The Caper of the
Pure Symbol", so I reckon that should serve as fair warning to those who want to run and hide.
Regards,
Jon
Gary Fuhrman wrote:
Jon, List,
JA: "A sign relation is a set of triples of the form (object, sign,
interpretant). The things
that participate in that sign relation have the roles they have only on account
of the places
they take in that sign relation. That is just the bare minimum of what it will
take to make any
progress in semiotics."
GF: Yes indeed, that is the bare minimum. Unfortunately, that still leaves us
in the dark as to
what you think was wrong with the statement I posted about dicisigns. Was it
somehow incompatible
with that "bare minimum"? If so, can you tell us how?
And now a technical point FOR EVERYONE about posting to peirce-l. This message
of yours, Jon,
should have been sent to peirce-l ONLY. The other three addresses you sent it
to are redundant,
since Edwina and I are both on peirce-l, and your post will not make it to the
biosemiotics list
because you aren't a subscriber to it. This redundancy often occurs on peirce-l
when people
"Reply to all" and forget to delete all the redundant addresses (leaving only
the peirce-l
address) before sending the message. This is a bad habit, and will lead to a
lot of needless
duplication of messages in many mailboxes if we don't all pay some attention to
where messages
are addressed before we send them . End of sermon.
gary f.
--
academia: http://independent.academia.edu/JonAwbrey
my word press blog: http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/
inquiry list: http://stderr.org/pipermail/inquiry/
isw: http://intersci.ss.uci.edu/wiki/index.php/JLA
oeiswiki: http://www.oeis.org/wiki/User:Jon_Awbrey
facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/JonnyCache
-----------------------------
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] . To
UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] with the
line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
