Jon AS,
JAS: Again, I tend to think of an immediate interpretant as an interpretant of
a type, each dynamical interpretant as an interpretant of a token, and the
final interpretant as the interpretant of the sign. Any given proposition
(sign) has a certain final interpretant, formulations of it
Jon, list,
Yes, objective time is continuous, so everything that takes time should be continuous too. Objective means, that it is a matter of the universe, the complete sign. So maybe discontinuities are not objective, but subjective, e.g. when you are in a conversation, and then the telephone
Gary F., List:
GF: So when you refer to the three interpretants of the *one sign*, you are
thinking of “type” and “token” as *aspects of the one sign*, not as
different signs ...
Although I would not call them "aspects," this is basically where I landed
after wrestling for a while with the ambig
Helmut, List:
HR: Other than universal objective time, subjective time is discontinuous,
but is it not real?
I believe that subjective time is just as continuous as objective time.
According to Peirce, "in the present moment we are directly aware of the
flow of time, or in other words that thing
