On Feb 6, 2019, at 4:09 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt <[email protected]> wrote: > > Again, the obvious strategy for defeating my major premise is simply to > provide a single counterexample--something that we can agree Peirce would > have acknowledged to be a Sign, but that is not determined by an Object other > than itself.
Here's an example of a sign and object being "other" by a formal distinction and not a real distinction: A sign of fresh paint is its wetness. Matt
----------------------------- 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 .
