Jeffrey,
I don't think this is the passage you have in mind, but it seems to be
related: CP 4.219 (c. 1897):
[[ Briefly to explain myself, then, geometry or rather mathematical
geometry, which deals with pure hypotheses, and unlike physical geometry,
does not investigate the properties of
From: Jerry LR Chandler [jerry_lr_chand...@mac.com]
Sent: Friday, April 04, 2014 10:48 AM
To: Peirce List
Cc: Vinicius Romanini; Jeffrey Brian Downard
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] de Waal Seminar: Chapter 5, Semeiotics, or the
doctrine of signs
Vinicius, Jeff, Ben
, April 05, 2014 3:04 PM
To: Jeffrey Brian Downard
Cc: Jerry LR Chandler; Peirce List; Vinicius Romanini
Subject: RE: [PEIRCE-L] de Waal Seminar: Chapter 5, Semeiotics, or
the doctrine of signs
(For undistorted Fgirue 1, see the attached.)
Jeff wrote:
. . . the fundamental elements
: Sungchul Ji [s...@rci.rutgers.edu]
Sent: Monday, April 07, 2014 11:23 AM
To: Jeffrey Brian Downard
Cc: Peirce List
Subject: RE: [PEIRCE-L] de Waal Seminar: Chapter 5, Semeiotics, or
the doctrine of signs
Jeff wrote (040714-1) and (040714-2):
. . . I don't believe that I'm using monad, dyad
, 2014 11:23 AM
To: Jeffrey Brian Downard
Cc: Peirce List
Subject: RE: [PEIRCE-L] de Waal Seminar: Chapter 5, Semeiotics,
or the doctrine of signs
Jeff wrote (040714-1) and (040714-2):
. . . I don't believe that I'm using monad, dyad and(040714-1)
triad to refer to the number of nodes
, April 07, 2014 1:09 PM
To: Jeffrey Brian Downard
Cc: Sungchul Ji; Peirce List
Subject: RE: [PEIRCE-L] de Waal Seminar: Chapter 5, Semeiotics,
or the doctrine of signs
Jeff asked:
Given your way of putting things, let me ask the (040714-3)
following question: is there anything
Jeff, List:
(Sung-note message to you below)
Your comment is timely as we begin to enter the next session.
The question of HOW MANY MEANINGS? may be assigned to a sign is critical from
the perspective of trans-disciplinarity. Recall Vinicius's listing of the
several meanings of the term
...@gmail.com]
Sent: 3-Apr-14 8:09 PM
To: peirce-l@list.iupui.edu 1
Subject: Fwd: [PEIRCE-L] de Waal Seminar: Chapter 5, Semeiotics, or the
doctrine of signs
Gary F., list
Thanks for transcribing this excerpt. I wish I had the time to transcript
the whole MS. If you do or find
Seminar: Chapter 5, Semeiotics, or the
doctrine of signs
Vinicius,
This is such a beautiful, clear explanation of Peirce's theory of
perception. Thank you so much!
In return, I attach some material from what I have now written on the
matter, in case it is of interest to anyone.
Cheers
: [PEIRCE-L] de Waal Seminar: Chapter 5, Semeiotics, or the doctrine
of signs
Vinicius, Jeff, Ben:
(This post is a bit on the technical side. Do not have time today to make it
simpler with longer explanations of the categories of exact relations mentioned
in this text.)
A simple interpretation
...@gmail.com]
Sent: 1-Apr-14 4:57 PM
To: Gary Fuhrman
Cc: Peirce List
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] de Waal Seminar: Chapter 5, Semeiotics, or the doctrine
of signs
Gary,
Very quickly: Assuming that we are talking about symbols (concepts, terms,
propositions, assertions, arguments etc) I agree
Gary F., list
Thanks for transcribing this excerpt. I wish I had the time to transcript
the whole MS. If you do or find a transcription, please send me!
You comment on my claim:
What he says here about the weathercock is:
1) If it works properly, it is an index involving an icon, and a
Jeff, list
Jeff said: Having taken a look at MS 7, I'd like to ask a quick question
about the first assertion. What is Vinicius claiming when he says that
icons don't *enter* our concepts as such? Looking at page 15 of the MS, I
see Peirce saying the following: An icon cannot be a
Cathy, list
Cathy: This post is on the matter of how a sign operates, specifically
the dynamic object. Just to complicate the discussion a little more, there
is a previously unpublished piece by Joe Ransdell on this matter in the
upcoming special edition of the Transactions dedicated to him
Gary, Vinicius, List,
Sorry that I haven't replied sooner; I was busy with working up my response
to Jon's posts -- deceptively small posts, I should say. In this post I'll
respond to Gary. I'll be responding to Vinicius's posts separately, which
responding will probably not come today since
]
*Verzonden:* woensdag 2 april 2014 15:41
*Aan:* 'Peirce List'
*Onderwerp:* RE: [PEIRCE-L] de Waal Seminar: Chapter 5, Semeiotics, or
the doctrine of signs
Vinicius,
My previous message was inspired by the kind of thing Peirce says in the
New Elements essay of 1904:
[[ Every sign
Jeff, list
Jeff says: I'm wondering what textual evidence you have for thinking the
dynamical object should be understood primarily or solely as something that
operates as an efficient cause.
I tend to think that much depends upon the character of the dynamical
object we're talking about and
and energetic; and the final, can be emotional,
energetic and logical.
Edwina
- Original Message -
From: Vinicius Romanini
To: peirce-l@list.iupui.edu 1
Sent: Saturday, March 29, 2014 11:51 AM
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] de Waal Seminar: Chapter 5, Semeiotics, or the
doctrine of signs
Dear Gary R., list
Thanks for your thoughts, Gary R. Commenting on what I wrote, you said:
* V: Besides that, a sign might have several objects (or a complex object),
but I don't see how an object cannot give rise to several signs. *
Gary: As I read the snippet from Kees' chapter, he is not
Vinicius, Gary R., Kees, list,
I agree with Gary about the role of purpose in interpretation. Vinicius
does, however, seem to allow of it in connection with the final
interpretant, and to wish merely that Kees had somehow put it into those
terms. On the other hand, I think Vinicius underplays
Professor
Department of Philosophy
NAU
(o) 523-8354
From: Benjamin Udell [bud...@nyc.rr.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2014 8:58 AM
To: peirce-l@list.iupui.edu
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] de Waal Seminar: Chapter 5, Semeiotics, or the doctrine
of signs
Vinicius
...@nyc.rr.com
Cc: peirce-l@list.iupui.edu 1 peirce-l@list.iupui.edu
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] de Waal Seminar: Chapter 5, Semeiotics, or the
doctrine of signs
Wrench. That makes more sense. Thanks, Ben!
Best,
Vinicius
2014-03-24 14:14 GMT-04:00 Benjamin Udell bud...@nyc.rr.com:
Vinicius
22 matches
Mail list logo
