Gary F., List: As I have said before, ideally our different approaches to Peirce's texts and the ideas that they convey will eventually converge on similar conclusions more often than not. Eventually I will be going back to see whether and how I can harmonize this recent line of thinking with my earlier one that focused on Form/Matter/Entelechy.
Thanks, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt On Thu, Aug 2, 2018 at 11:13 AM, <[email protected]> wrote: > Jon, list, > > > > This strikes me as a very cogent line of thinking. I’m particularly struck > by your statement that “The Immediate Object of any Sign is the *overlap* > of Informed Breadth and Depth that is necessary and sufficient for an > interpreting Quasi-mind to *identify* that Sign's Dynamic Object.” This > seems compatible with Peirce’s statement in his “weather” example > (EP2:498) that the “*Immediate Object* is the notion of the present > weather so far as this is common to her mind and mine,— not the > *character* of it, but the *identity* of it.” And that seems to me an > improvement over your previous statements about the immediate object. > > Gary f. >
----------------------------- 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 .
