List:
> On Jul 4, 2018, at 12:27 PM, g...@gnusystems.ca wrote:
>
> [[ If we take any proposition, say
>
> A sinner kills a saint
>
> and if we erase portions of it, so as to leave it a blank form of
> proposition, the blanks being such that if every one of them is filled with a
> proper
Gary F., List:
As I have acknowledged previously, Peirce evidently changed his mind about
what a Sign *signifies*.
In 1904, "every sign sufficiently complete *signifies characters*, or
qualities"--i.e., "Aristotelian *Form*"--such that "The totality of the
predicates of a sign, and also the
Gary F., List:
GF: Is the continuous predicate still a *rheme* when all the ‘matter’ has
been extracted from its ‘form’, so that nothing is left but an infinitely
recursive “is in the relation to”?
I would say no. A Rheme not only must have at least one blank *empty*, but
also at least one
Jon, just one question here: What’s the change of mind that you are referring
to when you say “Peirce's initial parallelism here aligns the Object of a Sign
with its Breadth, and its Interpretant with its Depth; so he evidently had
changed his mind about the latter already by 1906”? Change from
Jon, you asked,
“How would you spell out the difference between a Rheme and a Seme? What would
be an example of something that is a Seme, but not a Rheme?”
I think Bellucci gives a very lucid explanation of the two-stage process of
generalization that went from term/proposition/argument to
Gary F., List:
As if my previous post were not long enough already, last night I read
through "Prolegomena" (1906) in its entirety and came across two other
passages that struck me as worth mentioning.
CSP: A common mode of estimating the amount of matter in a MS. or printed
book is to count
