[peirce-l] Re: A sign as First or third...

[Claudio Guerri]

Jim, List,   I would not say that sign ARE thirds. But that signs can be considered in its thirdness... mostly... (also the whole Semiotic Nonagon is an interpretation of thirdness, as Merrell make me aware once...). Because it is most than important to be able to consider also secondness and firtness (which is the possibility of awareness/consciousness... or some change...). I think...   Claudio   ----- Original Message ----- From: Jim Piat To: Peirce Discussion Forum Sent: Friday, June 23, 2006 10:06 PM Subject: [peirce-l] Re: A sign as First or third...   Dear Claudio,  Folks--   I've omitted the meat and best part of your post for the sake of brevity, but I like your synthesis better than my own one sided insistence that signs are thirds (in the categorical sense).   I look forward to what others make of your suggestions.  But as for me --bravo and thanks.  You've helped me to see the fuller picture that somehow I couldn't seem to grasp.     That said I don't mean to repudiate Jean-Marc's position which I do not think depends upon my insistence that signs were thirds.  But having enough difficulty with my own misunderstandings I'll leave that discussion to Jean-Marc et al.      Cheers, Jim Piat     Jim, List,   I would like to try a comment on the relation between this two quotes: 1. "A _Sign_, or _Representamen_, is a First which stands in such genuine triadic relation to a Second, called its _Object_, as to be capable of determining a Third, called its _Interpretant..." (CP 2.274) and 2. "A sign is a third mediating between the mind addressed and the object represented". (Trichotomic, p. 281 Bref, [ A Sign is a First ] and [ A sign is a third ] as an apparent contradiction.     Dear Claudio,  Folks--   I've omitted the meat and best part of your post for the sake of brevity, but I like your synthesis better than my own one sided insistence that signs are thirds (in the categorical sense).   I look forward to what others make of your suggestions.  But as for me --bravo and thanks.  You've helped me to see the fuller picture that somehow I couldn't seem to grasp.     That said I don't mean to repudiate Jean-Marc's position which I do not think depends upon my insistence that signs were thirds.  But having enough difficulty with my own misunderstandings I'll leave that discussion to Jean-Marc et al.      Cheers, Jim Piat --- Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber [EMAIL PROTECTED] __________ Información de NOD32, revisión 1.1619 (20060624) __________ Este mensaje ha sido analizado con NOD32 antivirus system http://www.nod32.com --- Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber archive@mail-archive.com