Hi,
In a recent article ("Semiosis stems from logical incompatibility in
organic nature", Progress in Biophysics and Molecular Biology XXX (2015)
1-6), Kalevi wrote:
". . . . interpretant is enough; there can be interpretant without an
interpreter".
Is this true ? Can Kalevi or anyone else on these lists give me some
example of this ?
I always thought that Peirce defined an interpretant as the effect that a
sign has on the mind of an interpreter. Perhaps this is a misunderstanding
on my part ?
All the best.
Sung
--
Sungchul Ji, Ph.D.
Associate Professor of Pharmacology and Toxicology
Department of Pharmacology and Toxicology
Ernest Mario School of Pharmacy
Rutgers University
Piscataway, N.J. 08855
732-445-4701
www.conformon.net
-----------------------------
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 .
