Steven" I agree with you in being unable to find what Frances is saying intelligible, but I want to take the occasion to ask you what you mean by "immediacy", which seems to have a special meaning in your writings which is of special importance to you that I don't understand.
Joe Ransdell ----- Original Message ----- From: "Steven Ericsson Zenith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Peirce Discussion Forum" <peirce-l@lyris.ttu.edu> Sent: Monday, March 13, 2006 12:41 AM Subject: [peirce-l] Re: Representamens and Signs (was "Design and Semiotics Revisited" was "Peircean elements") Dear List, I was hoping to keep out of this. Mostly I think the deconstruction of Peirce's writings concerning representamen / sign is a waste of time and simply unable to produce any meaningful result. This message by Frances simply makes no sense to me. How do you, Frances or Gary, propose a representamen that is prior to "all existent objects and 'signs' and semiosis" - this assertion makes no sense ontologically or epistemologically. Indeed, even if I consider such an argument viable, any such representamen would not be accessible to apprehension. It leads me to believe that there is a misunderstanding in Frances argument concerning the very nature of semeiosis. I think you are both reading too much into Peirce's exploration - which he clearly testifies to. Consider the two terms a property of the immediacy of his manifest refinement (his analysis). With respect, Steven Frances Kelly wrote: >Gary... > >Thanks for your search and post. >As you implied, the distinction attempted to be made by me is in deed >the difference between "representamens" that are broader and prior to >all else in the world, including existent objects and "signs" and >semiosis, and that are independent of thought and mind and sense and >life itself. The reason for my making this attempt is simply the >seeming distinction made by Peirce himself in his many passages quoted >here. Agreeably, it may certainly prove useful to distinguish between >"signs" conveying notions to human minds and those "representamens" >which can not or need not do so. My train of thought on this matter >may of course be way off track, in that there may be no substantial >distinction at all. The Peircean writings recently posted to the list >by you on the terms "representamen" and "representamens" and >"representamina" will be read by me in detail for some insight. > >-Frances > > > >--- >Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > --- Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 268.2.1/278 - Release Date: 3/9/2006 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 268.2.1/278 - Release Date: 3/9/2006 --- Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber archive@mail-archive.com
