Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] The plethora of Interpretants

Jeff, List: Again, my definition is intended as a summary based on Peirce's various descriptions of the immediate interpretant in his different writings. That said, I believe that it is compatible with the particular one that you quoted (CP 8.315, EP 2:500, 1909 Apr 1). The immediate

Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Destinate Interpretant and Predestinate Opinion (was To put an end ...)

Jeff - I think that you misunderstand Monod. You seem to take the title of his book 'Chance and Necessity' to define his views of evolution as being due to either chance or 'necessity'. [tychism and anancasm]. The term of 'necessity' seems to me, to mean 'predetermined' i.e.,

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Destinate Interpretant and Predestinate Opinion (was To put an end ...)

Edwina, List, EDWINA: I don't see that Peirce promoted any of these views, ie, 'that life is predetermined in the universe ' nor that the existence of man is predetermined...and after all, Peirce's cosmology does begin with chance'. Note that I did not use the term "predetermined." Neither

Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] The plethora of Interpretants

Dear Jeff, JAS list, Forgive my interruption but were I to offer my opinion on your question regards *Quality*, my response would be ‘meh.. *any* immediate interpretant would do”; for they are all *predestinate* opinions. With best wishes, Jerry R On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 2:13 PM Jeffrey

Re: [PEIRCE-L] The Five Paths of Signs (Note)

BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px; }Robert, list Thanks for the diagrams. A few comments at the moment: 1] Of course, we know that not all semiosic processes go through all classes, and develop beliefs'. Much of our semiosic interactions

Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] The plethora of Interpretants

Jon, List, How does your definition of the immediate interpretant compare to what Peirce says in the following passage: "The Immediate Interpretant consists in the Quality of the Impression that a sign is fit to produce, not to any actual reaction"? (CP 8.315) JAS: The immediate

Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] The plethora of Interpretants

Auke, List: JAS: I continue to stand by my own definitions. AvB: Own definitions? I only see citations. My own definitions are stated in the very next sentence, copied verbatim from a previous post. JAS: The immediate interpretant is whatever a sign type *possibly could* signify within the

[PEIRCE-L] The podium "enriched" of the universal categories of Peirce.

This is an "enriched" version of the podium that complete the one that appears in the draft of my article awaiting publication: The podium of the universal categories of C.S.Peirce

[PEIRCE-L] The Five Paths of Signs (Note)

Abstract: This text is a methodological complement for a "dynamic" use of the lattice of the ten classes of signs. https://www.academia.edu/43167632/The_Five_Paths_of_Signs_Note_ Thanks for comments, Best regards, Robert _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ► PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply

Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] The plethora of Interpretants

Jon Alen, you wrote: I continue to stand by my own definitions. Own definitions? I only see citations. You wrote: I am really trying to understand both the system and the process. My question: is the text you wrote (see just below) in the same paragraph indicating your process view?