I think one has to be careful, as others have pointed out, in moving into a
'literal-bound' analysis of Peirce. That, in my view, moves into Saussurian
semiological nominalism where 'this word' has just 'that meaning'. Such a
dyadic one-to-one referential framework i.e., where interpretation absents
itself from that evolving and complex mediating 'law' [as Jerry points out] is
the antithesis of Peircean semiosis.
Edwina
----- Original Message -----
From: Jerry LR Chandler
To: Peirce List
Cc: Jon Alan Schmidt
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2017 2:24 PM
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Metaphysics and Nothing (was Peirce's Cosmology)
Jon:
On Jan 23, 2017, at 12:01 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt <jonalanschm...@gmail.com>
wrote:
CSP: A chaos of reactions utterly without any approach to law is
absolutely nothing;
In view of the scope of your literality, what is the meaning of this sentence
to you,
pragmatically?
philosophically?
theologically?
Cheers
jerry
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------
PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON
PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu .
To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with
the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
-----------------------------
PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L
to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To
UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the
line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
