Re: [PEIRCE-L] [biosemiotics:6231] Re: biosemiotics is the basis for

Too complex. I think this is simple logic. More or less like sperm. One from many. Sometimes two or more. Clarity is a virtue. *@stephencrose * On Fri, Aug 1, 2014 at 3:01 PM, Sungchul Ji wrote: > Stephen wrote: > > " . . . the totality of what is in the mind

Re: [PEIRCE-L] [biosemiotics:6231] Re: biosemiotics is the basis for

Stephen wrote: " . . . the totality of what is in the mind is at best (6231-1) subjected to a selection process that could ignore a huge number of possibilities foreclosed by the process of naming." This statement is consistent with the RPM category theory of everything reproduced in Figu

Re: [PEIRCE-L] [biosemiotics:6231] Re: biosemiotics is the basis for

What's more public than this list? You and me make two. That's almost public. I would throw in Nietzsche who was openly hostile to the notion that words are a be and end all. Plus any author knows - certainly Peirce did - that the totality of what is in the mind is at best subjected to a selection

RE: [PEIRCE-L] [biosemiotics:6231] Re: biosemiotics is the basis for

Stephen - "a slaying of what was there?" Do you mean the letter killeth the spirit? J Actually I think this is pretty close to what I've said (citing Eugene Gendlin) in Chapter 4 of Turning Signs (http://www.gnusystems.ca/bdy.htm#person). But then this is an introspective view of mental activity,

SV: SV: [PEIRCE-L] [biosemiotics:6231] Re: biosemiotics is the basis for

Dear John You write. "I see the possible becoming actual here, which is a change of category. Any change of category undermines identity (WHY??), so I wouldn't talk about a sign manifesting itself." It raises an interesting problem. My view is that the sign is real as a potential - but does not

RE: [PEIRCE-L] [biosemiotics:6231] Re: biosemiotics is the basis for

John, Clark, list, I think it’s clear that an uninterpreted sign (i.e. a representamen that does not generate an actual interpretant in some system) is not functioning as a sign. But I can’t help thinking that your “scepticism about icons” is based on a misunderstanding of iconicity as an elem