Helmut, List:
It seems to me that there is still a conflation here of logical, temporal,
and causal determination. We need to be careful about keeping these
distinct from each other.
*Logical *determination is what governs the order of the trichotomies
(three, six, or ten) for classifying signs
Auke, List:
I remain reluctant to classify any *real *signs as pure icons, indices, or
symbols. Consider these comments by Peirce.
CSP: It will be observed that the icon is very perfect in respect to
signification, bringing its interpreter face to face with the very
character signified. For
Auke, List:
As I explained at some length, my current view is as follows.
- The intentional interpretant is:
- the dynamical interpretant of a *previous *sign token with the same
dynamical object, because it is a determination of the mind of
the utterer.
- the final
Dear Helmut, Robert and list,
I've been following this topic on the tree-structure trying to understand
why a tree-structure would not lead to 66 sign classes.
Robert said:
"*If you put a tree structure on the ten trichotomies you can say probably
goodbye to the 66 classes of signs which are
Helmut, John,Jon, List
You have made a wise decision ... Stopping would be better ...
Ok... In terms of "dependency," "determinations" or "involutions," or
"objects of thought" and even "categories, I made too many concessions to
Cerberus ... Indeed I do not even need to call "objects of
Thank you John for this information. I believe that a reassessment of the
importance of mathematics in Peirce's work must be obtained from the
community of Peirceans.
As for Hegel's mathematical competence, Peirce was not very charitable :
"He has usually overlooked external Secondness,
Jon and Robert,
This issue illustrates an important point about
Peirce's development. His ideas were constantly "growing"
(Peirce's own word), and he kept revising his terminology as he continued
to find new ways of relating his ideas to one another and to the common
vocabulary of his day
Cf: Readings On Determination • Discussion 4
At:
http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2020/04/29/readings-on-determination-%e2%80%a2-discussion-4/
Re: Peirce List (
https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/arc/peirce-l/2020-04/thrd7.html#00199 )
::: Gary Fuhrman (
Supplement: I have to be more careful with terms: The way I see it (to be corrected) the object is not the representation of the preexistent entity. The representational process is the triad, the representation result the interpretant, the presentation may be the immediate object, and the
Jon Alen,
> while I indeed consider signs to be iconic/indexical/symbolic rather than
> pure icons/indices/symbols,
>
re: I think we need to consider them from both angles. If we deal with
interpretation processes we need the pure ones. The are needed to cover the
apprehension of the
Jon, List,
Thank you, Jon! As I have written in my post to Robert, I still am not fully clear with the temporal aspects versus the causal ones, and the pre-existing object. I have always seen it so, that sign, object, interpretant exist at the same time. Ok, the object points into the past, as
Robert, List,
Thank you for your very helpful critique. Maybe I should stop, or at least slow down with throwing guesses (not-tested hypotheses) into discussions.
You wrote:
The problem here is that formal determinations are timeless.
Butr I think, that causality has a lot to do with
Of lately I work with webmail and that puts in another adress. So, with delay
my response to Jon Alan.
Oorspronkelijk bericht --
Van: Auke van Breemen
Aan: Peirce-L
Datum: 27 april 2020 om 10:30
Onderwerp: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Fwd: an observation
Jon Alen,
You wrote: Thanks for
13 matches
Mail list logo
