Gary R., List:
I am currently trying out in my own mind defining the Immediate Object as
the *partial *combination of attributes of the Dynamic Object by which the
Sign *denotes *it. It is partial because (as you said) knowing the DO in
its fullness is an impossibility. It does not *itself *pred
g., objective) is, I take it, being
> explained in terms of the way the distinction is applied in the cases of
> these relatively simpler kinds of things--largely because that is how
> greater clarity can be achieved.
>
>
> --Jeff
>
>
> Jeffrey Downard
> Associate Pr
Edwina, List:
Thanks for the additional explication of your model. I knew that I was
oversimplifying it (again), so this is helpful.
Regards,
Jon S
On Wed, Feb 7, 2018 at 5:19 PM, Edwina Taborsky wrote:
> Jon, list - there's still quite a bit of disagreement.
>
> You are saying that I say th
Schmidt
Sent: Wednesday, February 7, 2018 3:05:40 PM
To: Helmut Raulien
Cc: Peirce List
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Representamen
Discussion
Helmut:
Thanks for clarifying that. It sounds like by "the epistemic cut" you mean
Peirce's distinction
BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px; }
Jon, list - there's still quite a bit of disagreement.
You are saying that I say that "all Signs [IO-R-II] are internal to
an individual agent. But remember - I don't consider that this
internal triad can exist
Helmut:
Thanks for clarifying that. It sounds like by "the epistemic cut" you mean
Peirce's distinction between "the inner world" and "the outer world."
Indeed, Edwina's model (as I understand it now) is that all Signs (IO-R-II)
are *internal to an individual agent*--although it need not be a hum
Jon, List,
I took the epistemic cut for the boundary of one´s mind (is that correct?), and taking it into account means to have to mention which parts of a sign are internal and which are external to it, as Edwina did. A representamen then is internal to a certain person´s mind. If you do not tak
Helmut, List:
I am not sure exactly what you mean in this context by "the epistemic cut,"
and hence which model (Edwina's or mine) you see as taking it into account
vs. ignoring it. Could you please clarify?
Thanks,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosoph
