Jeff, List:
As far as I know, your diagram is not consistent with any actual Sign
classification that Peirce ever suggested, let alone developed. Either
there are three correlates, but Signs are classified in terms of only one
of them plus two relations (1903), or there are six correlates and
-17 12:42
To: Peirce-L <peirce-l@list.iupui.edu>
Subject: Re: Fw: [PEIRCE-L] Dyadic relations within the triadic
Gary F, List,
At first i consideried writing you off-list since apparently my brain isn't
functioning sufficiently well enough yet so as to avoid making silly
ery. That’s true, but I think it’s
> worth pointing out that diagrams are also slippery with respect to their
> connection with their dynamic objects — in this case, with the semiosis we
> know from everyday experience.
>
>
>
> Gary f.
>
>
>
> *From:* Jon Alan Schmidt [mai
Re: Fw: [PEIRCE-L] Dyadic relations within the triadic
Jeff, List:
JD: I'm simply asking if there is any way to square what he seems to be
saying on the face of the text in NDTR with what he says later--without
supposing that he made a mistake or changed his mind.
It is a question worth
Jeff, List:
JD: I'm simply asking if there is any way to square what he seems to be
saying on the face of the text in NDTR with what he says later--without
supposing that he made a mistake or changed his mind.
It is a question worth asking and exploring, but so far I have not been
able to
