Kirsti and Gary F,
K
Euclid introduced the word SEMEION, and defined it as that which
has no parts, and his followers started to that word instead of
the earlier STIGME .
GF
By the way, according to my sources, Aristotle used the word σημεῖον
for point before Euclid. [And from web site]
Helmut,
I was not using a metaphor. Nor was I suggesting what you inferred I
did. I just posed two questions, one on sign, one on meaning. Which, of
course, are deeply related. But how?
To my mind both questions are worth careful ponderings. Especially in
connection with this phase in the
Gary f., list,
g...@gnusystems.ca kirjoitti 21.12.2017 16:39:
"Asking whether a sign has parts is like asking whether a line has
points."
Yes its does. But that does not answer the questions I posed. Perhaps I
should have added: What do you (listers) think?
Gary f.: " By the way,
Gary, Kirsti, List,
I do not agree, that the geometrical metaphor suits. "Part of", geometrically or spatially understood, is only one kind of being a part of. Kirsti suggested, that meaning is a part of a sign. But is meaning metaphorizable as a point on the line, with the line metphorizable as
List,
The following text from a few years later may throw some light on Peirce’s
remarks about “other categories” and how they differ from the “Universal
Categories,” which he also called “formal elements of the phaneron”:
[[ There can be no psychological difficulty in determining
Kirsti, list,
Asking whether a sign has parts is like asking whether a line has points.
Peirce has a comment on that in one of my blog posts from last month,
http://gnusystems.ca/wp/2017/11/stigmata/. By the way, according to my sources,
Aristotle used the word σημεῖον for point before
