Jean-Marc Orliaguet wrote:
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
I make a precision in case you still don't understand my point:
if the 3 trichotomies (S, S-Od, S-If) are ordered in a given way, how
can you claim that the order of the 3 trichotomies matters if it is
changes when 3 or 6 other trichotomies are added?
I think that this is a perfectly valid answer to your question. If you
still don't grasp it I can draw a powerpoint.
/JM
---
Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber archive@mail-archive.com
