Jean-Marc, You've evaded the question again. So, we can take your default as your tacit admission that you don't grasp even the appearance of the categorial correlations with the three trichotomies. I suppose that this tacit admission of yours is better than nothing, but it is really quite an astonishing admission for you to have made. It's not particularly illuminating of the philosophical topic when the interlocutor simply abandons the field, but I'll take the win.
Best, Ben Udell ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jean-Marc Orliaguet" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Peirce Discussion Forum" <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2006 2:19 PM Subject: [peirce-l] Re: 1st image of triangle of boxes (MS799.2) Benjamin Udell wrote: > Jean-Marc, > > I spoke of the three trichotomies, not the five or six or ten. If you don't > address what's said, why do you bother sending posts to a place like peirce-l? > If you do not address this structure, specifically, > > >> the 1st trichotomy pertains to the sign's own category, >> the 2nd to the category in which the sign refers to its object, and >> the 3rd to the category in which the sign entails its interpretant. >> > > then I think that you lose this argument by sheer default. > > Best, Ben UDell. > the same three trichotomies that you mention also appear also in the 6 and the 10 trichotomies in a different order. you obviously don't understand what you are writing about. /JM --- Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber [email protected]
