r
> 3-ness. Those are two totally different activities. The test is not a
> method of communication by means of sentences. It is a method for
> determining the structure of a sign.
>
> John
>
> ----------
> *From*: "Jon Alan Schmidt"
> *S
Jon, John, List,
The answer "A brooch" looks like a rheme, but as an answer it is a proposition, as "he gives her" is just omitted for the reason, that both know this opening. A triadic proposition, I think, if not already is an argument, at least involves a "because". For example if you say; "
lan Schmidt"
Sent: 2/15/24 9:47 PM
To: Peirce-L
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Interpretants, Sign Classification, and 3ns (was Who,
What, When, Where, How, and Why)
John, List:
At the risk of belaboring the point, I will take one more stab at showing why I
think that Peirce would not have agreed wi
John, List:
At the risk of belaboring the point, I will take one more stab at showing
why I think that Peirce would *not *have agreed with distinguishing 1ns,
2ns, and 3ns by aligning them with the answers to who/what/when/where, how,
and why questions as (allegedly) monadic, dyadic, and triadic.
a
why-question, may be a better way to elicit the correct information.
John
----
From: "Jon Alan Schmidt"
Sent: 2/15/24 2:56 PM
To: Peirce-L
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Interpretants, Sign Classification, and 3ns (was Who,
What, When, Where, How, and Why)
John, List:
It seems that we b
Jerry, Jon, List,
Helmut had an excellent suggestion: Every why-question can be answered with a
because-answer. Therefore, every instance of Thirdness can be explained in
sentence that contains the word 'because'. See my comments below and Helmut's
original note below that.
If you find my or
Helmut, List:
Peirce's three universal categories (1ns/2ns/3ns) are discovered in the
primal positive science of phaneroscopy (quality/reaction/mediation) and
diagrammatized in the hypothetical science of mathematics
(monadic/dyadic/triadic relations).
I do not know whether anyone has posted a ma
Helmut,
Thanks for mentioning the word 'because'. That's another way to explain the
3-way connection that answers a why-question, In general, every instance of
thirdness that relates (A B C) can be explained by a sentence of the form "A is
related to B because C."But some linguistic tran
List, Jon
> On Feb 14, 2024, at 12:56 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt
> wrote:
>
> There are indeed six classes of signs according to their dyadic relations
> with their two external interpretants (immediate is internal), but they have
> nothing to do with "the six basic question words.”
Thanks for poi
John, List:
It seems that we both made mistakes when addressing the e-mails reproduced
below. I apologize for sending mine to the List, it was intended for only
Gary as its moderator. Because of our unfortunate history of contentious
interactions, I often use him as a sounding board whenever I con
Supplement: Ok, I can access Commens Dictionary again!
John, List,
The answer to "why", "because" always needs two premisses, with itself being the third. So a thirdness is the answer to "why". Firstness can just say "I". Secondness is a second following a first, and so can say "I am
John, List,
The answer to "why", "because" always needs two premisses, with itself being the third. So a thirdness is the answer to "why". Firstness can just say "I". Secondness is a second following a first, and so can say "I am". Obviously, just by having a first for predecessor, not because
Jon, List,
Thank you for noting that I had intended to push the SEND ALL button for my
previous note (copied at the end).
But I stand by my claim that every example of Thirdness can be interpreted as
an answer to a question that begins with the word "Why".
I agree with your point that every si
List:
JFS: And there are six kinds of reference that a sign my have to its
interpretants.
Although Peirce discusses "reference to an interpretant" in his
groundbreaking early paper, "On a New List of Categories" (CP 1.553-559, EP
1:5-10, 1868), as far as I can tell, he *never *uses that phrase i
14 matches
Mail list logo