Isn't the point of considering anything the end? And isn't the end a
practical actionable something (expression, act) that contains the initial
sign and the index. In which case the sign would already have been
predefined by the logical end, though requiring the cogitative process to
get there. Isn't the end the point of the pragmaticist maxim.

amazon.com/author/stephenrose

On Sat, Aug 12, 2017 at 9:03 AM, John F Sowa <s...@bestweb.net> wrote:

> On 8/11/2017 5:09 PM, Helmut Raulien wrote:
>
>> A system, I think, is defined by the part of its structure, that does not
>> change. The system exists as long as this part of structure (set of
>> relations) exists. Which part of the structure is used to define the
>> system, can be arbitrary choice, but usually is something essential,
>> whatever this means.
>>
>
> You could apply Peirce's classification of signs to this analysis.
>
> As an example, consider the book _War and Peace_.  Peirce would call
> the physical book a sign token.  The corresponding type would be
> the entire text, considered as a string of chapters, paragraphs,
> sentences, words -- independent of any method of presentation
> or storage.
>
> That type is an abstraction from the physical book.  But there is
> an even more general abstraction:  the detailed plot of the book,
> which is the same type for Tolstoy's original Russian and the
> translation to English or any other language.
>
> A very similar, but somewhat simplified plot type could be used
> to classify a movie made from the book.  The plot type for the
> movie and the plot type for the book would both be special cases
> of a more general plot type.
>
> Every system has a "Now". This is the signs, that happen every now,
>> and this "now" travels through time.
>>
>
> You could apply that description to the movie as it is projected
> on a screen (in a theater or on a computer).
>
> But you could also apply it to the process of a person sitting
> in a chair and reading the book -- in any language.  That process
> may be discontinuous, since people don't read _War and Peace_
> in a single sitting.
>
> John
>
>
> -----------------------------
> 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 .




Reply via email to