On 3/17/2019 11:12 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt wrote:
the apparent contradiction was between saying that a percept "does not stand for anything" (1903) and saying that "a Percept is a Seme" (1906).
That contradiction is the result of claiming that a Seme is a subject. As a First, a Seme is pure possibility, and a percept is the purest of the pure. Light striking your retina is a pattern of colors. That is the Mark/Tone or Qualisign that is interpreted as a form. The direction and orientation are indexicals that determine something. Together, they are interpreted as a Second: a token of some type, such as "a rock". That is the subject that "stands for" something. For more explanation, see my recent note in the Bedrock thread. 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 [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 .
