made in Portuguese or English until February 28, 2022 by
email (especiallinguisticfronti...@gmail.com). Articles must comply with
the publication rules of the Linguistic Frontiers journal:
https://sciendo-parsed-data-feed.s3.eu-central-1.amazonaws.com/LF/Instructions_for_Authors.pdf
--
Vinicius
Portuguese or English until February 1, 2022 by
email (especiallinguisticfronti...@gmail.com). Articles must comply with
the publication rules of the Linguistic Frontiers journal:
https://sciendo-parsed-data-feed.s3.eu-central-1.amazonaws.com/LF/Instructions_for_Authors.pdf
--
Vinicius Romanini, Ph.D
Jon, list
JAS: What would be the degenerate classes for the S-O
(iconic/indexical/symbolic) and S-O-I (abducent/inducent/deducent)
relations? Is it feasible instead to make the third move be for the S-I
(rheme/dicisign/argument or seme/pheme/delome) relation, as suggested by
Peirce's 1903 taxonomy
Jon, list
> [image: image.png]
>
>
> JAS: There are genuine qualisigns (1), sinsigns (2), and legisigns (3);
> degenerate altersigns (1/2) and replicas (2/3); and doubly degenerate
> holisigns (1/2/3).
>
> Exact. I use a different notation: qualisigns (1), sinsigns (2) and
legisigns (3); degener
alogies and examples for
>> effective communication to other minds.
>>
>> VR: When we look at a painting by Pollock for the first time, we cognize
>> patterns that produce feelings for their final interpretant.
>>
>>
>> Again, in my view, those *actual *feelings are
, 6 de nov. de 2021 às 12:37, Vinicius Romanini
escreveu:
> Dear colleagues,
>
> This is an interesting thread. I have been working on these questions for
> a while now.
> My ideas are inspired by Peirce but not exactly identical to Peirce's.
> Tony Jappy once called me
t;> embodies
>>>>> a spoken or written text," and so the same questions just above might
>>>>> be put to, especially, the verbal expression of that "highly original
>>>>> thought."
>>>>>
>>>>> Perhap
Dear listers,
This is worth checking out:
http://www.iep.utm.edu/peir-log/
Sorry if it was already known to you. I had not seen it yet.
best,
V.
--
Vinicius Romanini, Ph.D.
Professor of Communication Studies
School of Communications and Arts
University of Sao Paulo, Brazil
, Cristina Voto
>
> All the best
> Claudio
>
> --
> Prof. Dr. Arch. Claudio F. Guerri
> Facultad de Arquitectura, Diseño y Urbanismo
> Universidad de Buenos Aires
> E-mail: claudiogue...@gmail.com
>
>
>
>
> Vinicius Romanini escribió el 15/07/2015 a las 02:4
a_contribuci%C3%B3n_de_Peirce_para_la_teor%C3%ADa_de_la_comunicaci%C3%B3n
Best,
--
Vinicius Romanini, Ph.D.
Professor of Communication Studies
School of Communications and Arts
University of Sao Paulo, Brazil
www.minutesemeiotic.org
www.semeiosis.com.br
Skype:vinicius_romanini
---
n in affirming the difference between an *actual*
> observation (as an instance of sense perception) and the *representation*
> of that instance (which assigns to its singular subject a general
> predicate, and thus constructs a “fact”).
>
>
>
> Gary f.
>
>
>
> *From:* Vinicius
roposition, therefore
> a general. When we talk *about facts*, then, we are in *some* sense
> talking about general objects. That doesn’t mean that the dynamic objects *of
> the facts we’re talking about* are necessarily general.
>
>
>
> Gary f.
>
>
>
>
>
> *From
itical Thinking*
>
> *Communication Studies*
>
> *LaGuardia College of the City University of New York*
>
> *C 745*
>
> *718 482-5690 <718%20482-5690>*
>
>
>
> On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 9:13 AM, John Collier wrote:
>
> Agreed, Frederik. I think this is real
;
>>>>>>> (Secondness)
>>>>>>> > for the scientific approach acknowledges the reality, which also
>>>>>>> means
>>>>>>> > the 'probability-to-be-actual' (Secondness), as Peirce insisted, of
>>>>>&
Frank, list
> F: Well, I don't really agree that the legisign's final interpretant must
> be a third, since at this time I prefer to lean more on Peirce's sketch in
> the last letter to Welby, wherein he makes the final interpretant to have
> three possible modes just as any other aspect or respe
Frank, list
F: I see that you are not quite in agreement with Peirce on the order of
determination between the aspects, or even the number of aspects. At least,
looking at the last letter to Welby contained in EP2, Peirce has ten
aspects, not eleven (and also, there will be in total sixty-six cla
Hello Frank, see my comments intertwined bellow:
>
> F: So here we see that a genuine Index will have its immediate
> interpretant be also a Second. However, it is notable that it is qualified
> as a genuine index. So, I would expect that in the case of the symbol, that
> one would have to say th
Dear friends,
The book on Peirce's philosophical contributions to biosemiotics edited by
Eliseo Fernández and myself is now available in both online and printed
versions:
http://link.springer.com/book/10.1007%2F978-94-007-7732-3
Vinicius
--
Vinicius Romanini, Ph.D.
Professor of Communic
Cathy, list
> Cathy: This post is on the matter of "how a sign operates", specifically
> the dynamic object. Just to complicate the discussion a little more, there
> is a previously unpublished piece by Joe Ransdell on this matter in the
> upcoming special edition of the Transactions dedicated to
>
> Jeff, list
>
> Jeff said: Having taken a look at MS 7, I'd like to ask a quick question
> about the first assertion. What is Vinicius claiming when he says that
> icons don't *enter* our concepts as such? Looking at page 15 of the MS, I
> see Peirce saying the following: "An icon cannot be
i.edu with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the
> BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm.
>
>
>
>
>
>
--
Vinicius Romanini, Ph.D.
Professor of Communication Studies
School of Communications and Arts
University of Sao Paulo, Brazil
alities of percepts.
> So depth signifies the object by applying to it percipua discriminated as
> predicative terms (mortal, rational, mammal etc). The process of
> discrimination, which is a hypostatic abstraction, is a work of the
> interpretant. What is left after all possible abs
uot;
>
> (gf] I would say instead that the predicate signifies *characters* of the
> object and thus furnishes the proposition with its depth.)
>
> "The process of discrimination, which is a hypostatic abstraction, is a
> work of the interpretant."
>
> gf] You&#
nction), so I
> associate the index with breadth and the icon with depth; but I don't
> associate either breadth or depth with the interpretant, so I don't see why
> you seem to associate the interpretant with depth. But that's all I can say
> right now.
>
>
>
>
>>
>>
>> As an additional note, I also wonder if "misinterpretation is lack of
>> information on the comprehension of a term" can't be quite right, since
>> Peirce extended information to propositions and arguments. Quoting from
>
lated with some interpretation
> of it.
>
>
>
> It further seems to me that to identify signs as hypostatic abstractions
> does not entail that the use of signs by an interpreter, either when
> perceiving something as a sign or when uttering a sign, requires that this
> interpre
previous
hypothesis.
The classes of signs are there to help us make useful logical distinctions.
If every sign had a purpose, every sign would be an argument.
And there would be only one sign, since the argument is the most developed
and complex of all them.
Best,
--
Vinicius Romanini, Ph.D.
Professo
y. An evolutionary view of an Aristotelian realism supposes that
even "would-be"s not opened yet to the human minds are real generals, even
if interpreters might never cognize them.
Vinicius
2014-03-26 22:11 GMT-04:00 Vinicius Romanini :
> Jeff, Jon, list
>>
>> Jeff said: Y
actually produced on the mind by
the Sign; and both of these from the Normal Interpretant, or effect that
would be produced on the mind by the Sign after sufficient development of
thought."
--
Vinicius Romanini, Ph.D.
Professor of Communication Studies
School of Communications
s how something that is only an abstraction can be a forceful
> cause - ?
>
> Cheers, Cathy
>
>
> -
> PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON
> PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should
duce the
sense of internal time. Being connected with esthetics, you know what this
means.
Vinicius
--
Vinicius Romanini, Ph.D.
Professor of Communication Studies
School of Communications and Arts
University of Sao Paulo, Brazil
www.minutesemeiotic.org
www.semeiosis.com.br
Skype:vinicius_romanin
Dear Gary R., list
Thanks for your thoughts, Gary R. Commenting on what I wrote, you said:
* V: Besides that, a sign might have several objects (or a complex object),
> but I don't see how an object cannot "give rise" to several signs. *
>
> Gary: As I read the snippet from Kees' chapter, he is n
n
> message, or that fossil fish, suffice to create the triadic sign?
>
> Edwina
>
> - Original Message -
> *From:* Vinicius Romanini
> *To:* Jon Awbrey
> *Cc:* peirce-l@list.iupui.edu 1
> *Sent:* Tuesday, March 25, 2014 1:14 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: de W
-- Forwarded message --
From: U Pascal
Date: 2014-03-25 13:56 GMT-04:00
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: de Waal Seminar: Chapter 5. Semeiotics, or the
Doctrine of Signs
To: Vinicius Romanini
Vinicius, list
That is a false dilemma Vinicius.
Whether or not all signs are hypostatic abstractions, we do
ls with generals as represented by their concrete
> representatives.
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Jon
>
> Vinicius Romanini wrote:
>
>> Dear list members,
>>
>> In this second message I will comment on Kees' excursion on Peirce's
>> definition of s
difficult it is to put a "tag" such "this is an index, that is an
abduction" without considering the whole "movement of the thought"
involved. As in my next message we will have to deal with Peirce's classes
of signs, I think it is good to keep this in mind.
All the be
son, to be logical. (The syllogism is universal!) Therefore,
> the acknowledgement of the differences between a subject, verb, object, are
> universal - and although the words may be different and even the placement
> of these three basic units can vary, as you say, the languages can
Wrench. That makes more sense. Thanks, Ben!
Best,
Vinicius
2014-03-24 14:14 GMT-04:00 Benjamin Udell :
> Vinicius, Eugene, list,1
>
> "wrench"?
>
>
>
> Best, Ben
>
>
> On 3/24/2014 12:49 PM, Vinicius Romanini wrote:
>
> Dear Eugene,
>
> It
agmatic semiotics, indeed, it is one of its basic
> principles. This brand of relation to interpretation is different from the
> "conventionality" of indices, and Peirce was careful to distinguish them.
>
> Regards,
>
> Jon
>
> Vinicius Romanini wrote:
>
>> D
ly, is
that languages are not only translatable one into another but there might
be a possibility of capturing the essence of this general syntax to create
a diagrammatic system to represent thought *in general*. This belief will
lead Peirce to conceive his logical graphs.
In my next message I will put
g ("matter").
I have just applied the idea to my solenoid, and found out that it works
fine.
Best,
Vinicius
2014-03-21 13:07 GMT-04:00 Edwina Taborsky :
> Excellent outline, Vinicius. I very much like your relationship between
> Psi and Phi
>
>
>
> - Original Mes
representamen is indeed often a thing, like that red-colored octagon
> with white markings commonly called "a stop sign". What doesn't represent
> another than itself, insofar as it does not, is simply not actually a
> representamen.
>
> It remains t
42 matches
Mail list logo
