Post : Peirce's 1870 “Logic Of Relatives” • Comment 10.4
http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2014/03/26/peirces-1870-logic-of-relatives-%e2%80%a2-comment-10-4/
Posted : March 26, 2014 at 9:30 am
Peircers,
just 2 bits ...
a bit of segue ...
From now on I will use the forms of analysis exemplified
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 not
Vinicius, Gary R., Kees, list,
I agree with Gary about the role of purpose in interpretation. Vinicius
does, however, seem to allow of it in connection with the final
interpretant, and to wish merely that Kees had somehow put it into those
terms. On the other hand, I think Vinicius underplays
Ben, List,
You say: I agree with Gary about the role of purpose in interpretation.
Vinicius does, however, seem to allow of it in connection with the final
interpretant, and to wish merely that Kees had somehow put it into those terms.
On the other hand, I think Vinicius underplays the role
Peircers,
Recent discussions of purpose in semiotics remind me once more of a recurring
theme:
Jon Awbrey | 9 Sep 20:22 2011
[http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.comp.inquiry/3713]
Objects, Objectives, Objectivity
I am constantly reminded of this favorite line from Peirce:
No longer wondered
As far as ends go, if it's good enough for Goethe it's good enough for me.
Das Ewig-Weibliche zieht uns hinan.
Cheers,
Jon
http://inquiryintoinquiry.com
On Mar 26, 2014, at 5:32 PM, Jeffrey Brian Downard jeffrey.down...@nau.edu
wrote:
Jon, List,
Your reference to the Latin and Greek
