Gary F., List: GF: I simply find myself unable to come up with an individual experience that could be referred to as a “sign token” and has no context.
Indeed, all our individual *experiences *with individual sign tokens have real contexts. Speculative grammar *abstracts *from those different experiences and their different contexts to ascertain what *all *signs have in common. We can then say that something *lacking *any of those essential characters is *not *a sign. That is precisely why I exclude qualisigns--a quality in itself cannot represent something else, so it cannot be a sign at all, only an "indefinite significant character" of a sign token in which it inheres. GF: Maybe I’m just not equipped to think like a mathematician about semiosis. And maybe--even probably--I am just not equipped to think like a special (physical or psychical) scientist about semeiosis. Inquiry benefits from both perspectives, and few are as adept at both as Peirce evidently was. GF: My apologies for laying my cuckoo egg in your (and Robert’s) nest. No apology necessary, I always appreciate your insights. Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt On Sat, May 2, 2020 at 6:07 AM <[email protected]> wrote: > Jon, I see where you’re coming from. But when it comes to *the practice > of theorizing*, the Peirce advice that has most leverage on me is this: “every > kind of proposition is either meaningless or has a real Secondness as its > object. This is a fact that every reader of philosophy should constantly > bear in mind, translating every abstractly expressed proposition into its > precise meaning in reference to an individual experience” (EP2:279). I > simply find myself unable to come up with an individual experience that > could be referred to as a “sign token” and has no context. Every example of > a sign that I can remember or imagine experiencing has some kind of context > which limits the kind of interpretant(s) it can generate. Maybe I’m just > not equipped to think like a mathematician about semiosis. My apologies for > laying my cuckoo egg in your (and Robert’s) nest. > > > > 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 .
