Gary R., List:

Welcome back!  Consider it a "get well" gift from Edwina and me. :-)

Regards,

Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman
www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt

On Sat, Apr 1, 2017 at 3:12 PM, Gary Richmond <[email protected]>
wrote:

> Edwina, Jon, List,
>
> Will wonders never cease? To see the two of you, once so far apart in so
> many matters, find common ground on these few, albeit in my opinion,
> exceedingly important semeiotic distinctions, is most wonderful to behold.
>
> Indeed, I feel that together you have moved thinking--at least
> mine--regarding the nature of the sign quite a distance forward, perhaps
> beyond anything I've read in the literature--or, at very least, the
> condensed (succinct) form of posts to a forum such as this clarifies ideas,
> casting a bright light on such distinctions and definitions as you've been
> making. I should add in passing that I tend to strongly concur with those
> points upon which you appear to be in agreement.
>
> Perhaps what has facilitated my understanding of your--and any number of
> other cogent contributors-- recent exchanges (and in several threads) is my
> having read them pretty much in a couple sittings during the last couple of
> days. This hiatus in my reading posts and participating on the list was the
> result of my having been incapacitated most of this year, first with a
> problematic hip replacement early in January, a painful hairline fracture
> of my femur in February, a complete break of it early in March,
> necessitating a revision (redoing) of the hip replacement involving a
> difficult posterior approach (with more precautions, a long healing time,
> much more pain, etc.) Following a week in hospital, I spent the last three
> weeks in a rehabilitation center from which I was released yesterday. I
> still have a long way to go to complete recovery--but at least I'm at home!
>
> This is all by way of explaning why I've been so quiet on the list. I
> would like to add that I have been delighted to observe (at first,
> sporadically and, recently, steadily reading through threads) the high
> quality of discussion that has, in my opinion, characterized so much of
> list discussion these first few months of the year. I think Joe Ransdell
> would be pleased to see that his brain child, the peirce-l forum, continues
> to produce valuable philosophical/scientific/semeiotic work.
>
> Best,
>
> Gary Richmond (writing as list moderator)
>
> [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 <(718)%20482-5690>*
>
> On Sat, Apr 1, 2017 at 2:41 PM, Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>> Jon, list - this is my second reply to this post. After thinking a bit
>> about it - I'd say that I do agree with your point:
>>
>> Jon wrote: "I would suggest that an Immediate Interpretant is never an actual
>> interpretant that a Sign produces, but rather a range of possible 
>> interpretants
>> that a Sign may produce.  In other words, the Immediate Interpretant is the
>> Sign's capacity to produce an actual interpretant--i.e., a Dynamic
>> Interpretant. "
>>
>> As a 'range of possible interpretants' - these are dependent on the
>> sign/representamen, which is in turn determined by the Dynamic/Immediate
>> Objects. So therefore, the Affects of these two, the DO and the IO,  and
>> their informational content,   will move on within the Representamen/sign
>> and thus, be part of and both determine and constrain the nature of the
>> Immediate Interpretant.
>>
>> So- therefore - I see - and accept, your analysis.
>>
>> 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 [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 .




Reply via email to