Helmut, yes, that’s exactly why I didn’t use the word “type”, and only used the
word “token” because I couldn’t think of a better word to get the idea across.
Gary f.
From: Helmut Raulien
Sent: 20-Jun-21 02:26
To: gary.richm...@gmail.com
Cc: Peirce-L ; Gary Fuhrman
Subject: Aw: Re:
Gary, Gary, List
Of course I agree, that Peirce´s own explanation and your interpretation are much better than my attempt. Still though I feel a little unwell about the token-type relation between "the phaneron" and "a phaneron": Usually the type is a class between other classes on the same
Gary R., Gary F., List:
GR: My reservations for now: (1) again, I do not see the use of quali-,
sin-, and legisense in phenomenology as conflating aspects of it with
quali-, sin-, and legisign in logic as semeiotic, but as revealing the
underlying influence (which is not a conflation, as 'sense'
Alex,
Everybody on planet Earth knows and uses an excellent
Knowledge Query Language every day. It's our native language or some
other NL that we choose to use or are required to use for some
purpose.
But KQL is a bad acronym, because it puts too much emphasis
on the Q. It's better to
Gary R., List:
GR: Qualisense refers, of course, to 'quality' while 'primisense' implies
first or 1ns.
Again, I am very much open to the terminological substitution of
"qualisense" (1909) for "primisense" (c. 1896), especially since in its
original context the latter is synonymous with
Jon, Gary F, List,
JAS: I did not say that the terminology of "qualisense," "sinsense," and
"legisense" conflates phaneroscopy with semeiotic, I said that it *runs the
risk of fostering* such conflation.
GR: A subtle distinction; perhaps you are right. But I think that it's a
*slight* risk and,
