Jon Schmidt: Yes, that's the interpretation I made of your comments [i.e.,
Saussurian nominalism]. And no, I won't get into any 'alternative
interpretation' or debate with you as you, in my view, are firmly operative
within that mould [Saussurian nominalism] and tend to remould Peirce into a
strict one-meaning only structure. So - there's no point in debating with you -
as the 'debate' reduces into you asserting your view and claiming that other
views are 'non-Peircean'.
Edwina
----- Original Message -----
From: Jon Alan Schmidt
To: Edwina Taborsky
Cc: Peirce List
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2017 3:36 PM
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Metaphysics and Nothing (was Peirce's Cosmology)
Edwina, List:
Are you suggesting, then, that my "analysis" of the quotes that I cited from
"New Elements" is "literal-bound" in that sense? If so, then what alternative
interpretation do you think would result from properly applying Peircean
semeiotic realism instead?
Thanks,
Jon
On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 2:18 PM, Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca> wrote:
Jon - I explained a 'literal-bound' analysis in my post, when I gave the
example of Saussurian semiological nominalism, where 'this word' stands for
'that meaning'.
As for the triad of semiosis, I've explained mediation many times before
and won't repeat that explanation.
Edwina
----- Original Message -----
From: Jon Alan Schmidt
To: Edwina Taborsky
Cc: Peirce List
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2017 2:46 PM
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Metaphysics and Nothing (was Peirce's Cosmology)
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 .
-----------------------------
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 .
