Edwina, List: Would you mind clarifying, as well? What exactly do you mean by "a 'literal-bound' analysis of Peirce"? What exactly is "that evolving and complex mediating 'law'" that you seem to believe is essential to proper interpretation? As far as I can tell, Jerry did not point out any such thing in his response, so maybe I am just missing something.
Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 1:34 PM, Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca> wrote: > 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 >
----------------------------- 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 .
