: Friday, July 03, 2015 10:02 AM
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] More on applying theory - culture, projection
What if I was to take Object-Representamen-Interpretant as the Triad I was
using as the model for Reality Ethics Aesthetics so that the First (Object)
would be the initial element
*Subject:* Re: [PEIRCE-L] More on applying theory - culture, projection
Thanks Edwina.
Quote:
Peirce: CP 8.335 Cross-Ref:††
335. In respect to their relations to their dynamic objects, I
divide signs into Icons, Indices, and Symbols (a division I gave in 1867).
...
End quote
: Thursday, July 02, 2015 7:18 PM
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] More on applying theory - culture, projection
I very much enjoyed the focus on applied concepts of the discussion
and found it very insightful. I don't see the reference of emptiness so much,
but more universal, perhaps
*To:* Edwina Taborsky tabor...@primus.ca
*Cc:* Peirce List Peirce-L@list.iupui.edu
*Sent:* Friday, July 03, 2015 8:57 AM
*Subject:* Re: [PEIRCE-L] More on applying theory - culture, projection
Thanks Edwina.
Quote:
Peirce: CP 8.335 Cross-Ref:††
335. In respect
:* Friday, July 03, 2015 7:40 AM
*Subject:* Re: [PEIRCE-L] More on applying theory - culture, projection
Edwina wrote:
Words in themselves, as objects, are not semiosic. When words are used
within a relational interaction (with the self, with others) and are thus
in a triadic relation (object
, July 02, 2015 9:53 PM
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] More on applying theory - culture, projection
Edwina wrote:
Sung, I suggest that your assertions that because we 'think, write and speak
in signs' and that Peircean research was 'devoted to signs'...that your
subsequent conclusion that 'any
...@rci.rutgers.edu
*To:* PEIRCE-L peirce-l@list.iupui.edu
*Sent:* Thursday, July 02, 2015 9:53 PM
*Subject:* Re: [PEIRCE-L] More on applying theory - culture, projection
Edwina wrote:
Sung, I suggest that your assertions that because we 'think, write and
speak in signs' and that Peircean research
:* Sungchul Ji s...@rci.rutgers.edu
*To:* PEIRCE-L peirce-l@list.iupui.edu
*Sent:* Thursday, July 02, 2015 9:53 PM
*Subject:* Re: [PEIRCE-L] More on applying theory - culture, projection
Edwina wrote:
Sung, I suggest that your assertions that because we 'think, write and
speak in signs
: Friday, July 03, 2015 3:16 PM
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] More on applying theory - culture, projection
Edwina,
I appreciate your careful analysis of my syllogism, but I disagree with
your conclusion that my syllogism is
. . .a circular argument and thus fallacious
..is Peircean'.
You might want to look up the format of syllogisms.
Edwina
- Original Message -
From: Sungchul Ji
To: Edwina Taborsky ; biosemiotics
Cc: PEIRCE-L
Sent: Friday, July 03, 2015 3:16 PM
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] More on applying theory - culture, projection
; biosemiotics
biosemiot...@lists.ut.ee
*Cc:* PEIRCE-L peirce-l@list.iupui.edu
*Sent:* Friday, July 03, 2015 3:16 PM
*Subject:* Re: [PEIRCE-L] More on applying theory - culture, projection
Edwina,
I appreciate your careful analysis of my syllogism, but I disagree with
your conclusion that my
2015 12:54 AM
To: Benjamin Udell; peirce-l@list.iupui.edu
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] More on applying theory - culture, projection
I'd agree with Ben; I don't think the list can be reduced to 'any and all
topics'. It's a Peircean list.
Sung, I suggest that your assertions that because we 'think
...@lists.ut.ee
Subject: Aw: RE: [PEIRCE-L] More on applying theory - culture, projection
Thank you, Stephen! Now I see your point and have read it, and do not feel offended. But I would say, that projection is something everybody does, not only the feminists. Also manipulation using shaming
-psych/transcending-the-matriarchy/
sj
*From:* Helmut Raulien [mailto:h.raul...@gmx.de http://h.raul...@gmx.de]
*Sent:* Wednesday, 1 July 2015 6:12 PM
*To:* Stephen Jarosek
*Cc:* 'Peirce List'; biosemiot...@lists.ut.ee
*Subject:* Aw: RE: [PEIRCE-L] More on applying theory - culture,
projection
*From:* Helmut Raulien [mailto:h.raul...@gmx.de http://h.raul...@gmx.de
]
*Sent:* Wednesday, 1 July 2015 6:12 PM
*To:* Stephen Jarosek
*Cc:* 'Peirce List'; biosemiot...@lists.ut.ee
*Subject:* Aw: RE: [PEIRCE-L] More on applying theory - culture,
projection
Thank you, Stephen! Now I
-
From: Bev Corwin
To: Edwina Taborsky
Cc: Benjamin Udell ; Peirce-L
Sent: Thursday, July 02, 2015 7:56 PM
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] More on applying theory - culture, projection
Hi Edwina, Therefore, if your words are not a semiosic concept, are they
semioitc?
Bev
On Thu, Jul 2
*Sent:* Thursday, July 02, 2015 7:56 PM
*Subject:* Re: [PEIRCE-L] More on applying theory - culture, projection
Hi Edwina, Therefore, if your words are not a semiosic concept, are they
semioitc?
Bev
On Thu, Jul 2, 2015 at 7:49 PM, Edwina Taborsky tabor...@primus.ca
wrote:
Bev
- Original Message -
From: Bev Corwin
To: Edwina Taborsky
Cc: Benjamin Udell ; Peirce-L
Sent: Thursday, July 02, 2015 8:19 PM
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] More on applying theory - culture, projection
And the tyranny of English grammar? Yes, I see. Best wishes.
Bev
On Thu, Jul
-
*From:* Benjamin Udell bud...@nyc.rr.com
*To:* peirce-l@list.iupui.edu
*Sent:* Thursday, July 02, 2015 6:17 PM
*Subject:* Re: [PEIRCE-L] More on applying theory - culture, projection
*Sung, all,Your post implies that we should emulate Peirce to a T but we
can't emulate Peirce to a T
Hear, hear. One would think this would go without saying, but apparently not.
From: Benjamin Udell [mailto:bud...@nyc.rr.com]
Sent: Thursday, July 02, 2015 6:37 PM
To: peirce-l@list.iupui.edu
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] More on applying theory - culture, projection
Bev, well, yes, Sung
in only by one other person. That's what the 'delete' button
is for.
Edwina
- Original Message -
From: Benjamin Udell
To: peirce-l@list.iupui.edu
Sent: Thursday, July 02, 2015 6:17 PM
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] More on applying theory - culture, projection
Sung, all,
Your
what the 'delete' button is for.
Edwina
- Original Message -
*From:* Benjamin Udell bud...@nyc.rr.com
*To:* peirce-l@list.iupui.edu
*Sent:* Thursday, July 02, 2015 6:17 PM
*Subject:* Re: [PEIRCE-L] More on applying theory - culture, projection
*Sung, all,Your post implies
; Peirce-L
Sent: Thursday, July 02, 2015 7:18 PM
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] More on applying theory - culture, projection
I very much enjoyed the focus on applied concepts of the discussion and found
it very insightful. I don't see the reference of emptiness so much, but more
universal, perhaps
michael...@comcast.net wrote:
Hear, hear. One would think this would go without saying, but apparently
not.
*From:* Benjamin Udell [mailto:bud...@nyc.rr.com]
*Sent:* Thursday, July 02, 2015 6:37 PM
*To:* peirce-l@list.iupui.edu
*Subject:* Re: [PEIRCE-L] More on applying theory - culture
:18 PM
*Subject:* Re: [PEIRCE-L] More on applying theory - culture, projection
I very much enjoyed the focus on applied concepts of the discussion and
found it very insightful. I don't see the reference of emptiness so much,
but more universal, perhaps.
Bev
On Thu, Jul 2, 2015 at 6:54 PM
Ben, Bev, list,
I agree with Ben. Indeed, this notion of Sung's that 'all' of Peirce's work
is in semiotic, would tend to narrow discussion parameters since it fails
to consider the many other sciences (and other disciplines) Peirce explored
and to which he contributed. Logic as semiotic--and its
2015 6:12 PM
*To:* Stephen Jarosek
*Cc:* 'Peirce List'; biosemiot...@lists.ut.ee
*Subject:* Aw: RE: [PEIRCE-L] More on applying theory - culture,
projection
Thank you, Stephen! Now I see your point and have read it, and do not
feel offended. But I would say, that projection is something
it is... political correctness.
From: Stephen C. Rose [mailto:stever...@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, 2 July 2015 6:12 PM
To: Gary Richmond
Cc: Peirce-L
Subject: Re: RE: RE: [PEIRCE-L] More on applying theory - culture, projection
Then the proper response is to ask the writer how she or he thinks
I enjoy all of the discussions and would prefer more broad than restrictive
frameworks. I consider restricting discussions as more technocratic tactic
/ approach and not Perice related in style.
Bev
-
PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on Reply List or Reply All to REPLY ON
Agree about broad and do not think it is forced if the discussion can be
related to such broader matters as realism, triadic thinking, continuity,
fallibility, ethics, aesthetics, reality, signs, semiotics and so forth.
When it veers off is when buttons are pushed. I for example think the use
of
Maybe we could split the topic, and talk about primal nurturer and mammal instincts in the biosemiotics list, and about myths in a Peirce-related way in the Peirce list?
Best, Helmut
Stephen C. Rose stever...@gmail.com wrote:
Agree about broad and do not think it is forced if the
correctness.
*From:* Stephen C. Rose [mailto:stever...@gmail.com stever...@gmail.com]
*Sent:* Thursday, 2 July 2015 6:12 PM
*To:* Gary Richmond
*Cc:* Peirce-L
*Subject:* Re: RE: RE: [PEIRCE-L] More on applying theory - culture,
projection
Then the proper response is to ask the writer how
Helmut wrote: Maybe we could split the topic, and talk about primal
nurturer and mammal instincts in the biosemiotics list, and about myths in
a Peirce-related way in the Peirce list?
I like this idea very much.
Best,
Gary
[image: Gary Richmond]
*Gary Richmond*
*Philosophy and Critical
July 2015 6:12 PM
*To:* Stephen Jarosek
*Cc:* 'Peirce List'; biosemiot...@lists.ut.ee
*Subject:* Aw: RE: [PEIRCE-L] More on applying theory - culture,
projection
Thank you, Stephen! Now I see your point and have read it, and do not
feel offended. But I would say, that projection
something that they ultimately won’t want to read. sj
From: Helmut Raulien [mailto:h.raul...@gmx.de]
Sent: Wednesday, 1 July 2015 12:38 PM
To: sjaro...@iinet.net.au
Cc: 'Peirce List'; biosemiot...@lists.ut.ee
Subject: Aw: [PEIRCE-L] More on applying theory - culture, projection
Stephen,
How should
Bev, Gary, lists,
I agree with Bev, because Peirce's whole career was devoted to the study of
signs and Peirce-related is thus sign-related, it seems to me.
Besides, as I learned it from Peirce, we THINK, WRITE, and SPEAK in SIGNS,
and hence whatever we post on these lists should be regarded as
*Sung, all,
Your post implies that we should emulate Peirce to a T but we can't
emulate Peirce to a T because we aren't Peirce. PEIRCE-L is for
Peirce-related discussion. Peirce himself was not focused on
'Peirce-related' discussion. Instead those who carry on prolonged,
multi-post
*Bev, well, yes, Sung barely emulates Peirce at all, but he wants us to
do so in certain convenient ways.
It really isn't complicated. PEIRCE-L is for discussion of
Peirce-related topics - _/particularly/_ Peirce-related topics, such
that the relation is thematized. If people want a total
Stephen,
How should one know whether he/she would be offended without having read it? I think, critique is always justified, about anything. The only offending is that what sometimes comes along with the critique and is more than critique: For example striking back by applying similar methods to
” anyone into reading
something that they ultimately won’t want to read. sj
From: Helmut Raulien [mailto:h.raul...@gmx.de]
Sent: Wednesday, 1 July 2015 12:38 PM
To: sjaro...@iinet.net.au
Cc: 'Peirce List'; biosemiot...@lists.ut.ee
Subject: Aw: [PEIRCE-L] More on applying theory - culture
[mailto:h.raul...@gmx.de]
Sent: Wednesday, 1 July 2015 12:38 PM
To: sjaro...@iinet.net.au
Cc: Peirce List; biosemiot...@lists.ut.ee
Subject: Aw: [PEIRCE-L] More on applying theory - culture, projection
Stephen,
How should one know whether he/she would be offended without having read it? I
: Wednesday, 1 July 2015 12:38 PM
To: sjaro...@iinet.net.au
Cc: Peirce List; biosemiot...@lists.ut.ee
Subject: Aw: [PEIRCE-L] More on applying theory - culture, projection
Stephen,
How should one know whether he/she would be offended without having read it? I think, critique is always
'; biosemiot...@lists.ut.ee
Subject: Aw: RE: [PEIRCE-L] More on applying theory - culture, projection
Thank you, Stephen! Now I see your point and have read it, and do not feel
offended. But I would say, that projection is something everybody does, not
only the feminists. Also manipulation
Lists,
Another article of mine that is informed by semiotic-biosemiotic theory.
Emphasis here is on culture and projection, especially from the perspective
of firstness, secondness. Knowing how to be also relates. Again, same
warning applies as last time... critical of feminism (please don't
44 matches
Mail list logo
