Helmut wrote: Maybe we could split the topic, and talk about primal nurturer and mammal instincts in the biosemiotics list, and about myths in a Peirce-related way in the Peirce list?
I like this idea very much. Best, Gary [image: Gary Richmond] *Gary Richmond* *Philosophy and Critical Thinking* *Communication Studies* *LaGuardia College of the City University of New York* *C 745* *718 482-5690* On Thu, Jul 2, 2015 at 1:52 PM, Helmut Raulien <[email protected]> wrote: > Maybe we could split the topic, and talk about primal nurturer and mammal > instincts in the biosemiotics list, and about myths in a Peirce-related way > in the Peirce list? > Best, Helmut > > > "Stephen C. Rose" <[email protected]> wrote: > > Agree about broad and do not think it is forced if the discussion can be > related to such broader matters as realism, triadic thinking, continuity, > fallibility, ethics, aesthetics, reality, signs, semiotics and so forth. > When it veers off is when buttons are pushed. I for example think the use > of myth to connote falsehood is wrong. I was constrained from saying so > because it has no explicit relationship to what I have derived from Peirce. > > > Books http://buff.ly/15GfdqU Art: http://buff.ly/1wXAxbl > Gifts: http://buff.ly/1wXADj3 > > On Thu, Jul 2, 2015 at 1:10 PM, Bev Corwin <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> I enjoy all of the discussions and would prefer more broad than >> restrictive frameworks. I consider restricting discussions as more >> technocratic tactic / approach and not Perice related in style. >> >> Bev >> >> >
----------------------------- 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 .
