Howard, Stephen,
I think it would be more accurate to say that meaning is *recreated* by the
interpreting agent. In other words, the interpretant is a sign, but not just
any sign arbitrarily invented by the interpreter. In order to be meaningful,
it has to carry forward the functioning of the
Re: Howard Pattee
At: http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/14669
Howard, List,
Peirce's classic statement about the relationship between interpreters and
interpretants is a topic I discussed somewhat playfully here:
If you have ever preached you will remember times when your statements are
remembered by an enthusiast who repeats to you what you said, implying a
meaning. Often not what you meant. I think meaning must be seen to be in
the eye of the beholder with only scant (if that) reference to what was
Stephen, lists,
People sometimes misinterpret a speaker, but this is partly because the
communication system is not even structured to be purely the kind toward
which Shannon's communication theory was mainly oriented - a system with
rigid pre-established code and so on. Sometimes
The origins of universalism are interesting. An unfamiliar but to me the
most relevant source is English universalism propounded by an obscure
cleric called James Relly. John Murray brought universalism to America and
the church eventually lost all of its original meaning by merging with the
Stephen - it's called The Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1776, and states
that
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that
they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among
these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of
Mary, list,
Those are excellent quotes from Peirce. The Critic of Arguments: 2. The
Reader is Introduced to Relatives was published in _The Open Court_ No.
268 (Vol. VI—41), October 13, 1892
http://books.google.com/books?id=6qzQMAAJpg=PA3415 and reprinted in
CP 3.415-424. The word
I read David Brooks’ piece in the New York Times, and have had a long term
interest in pragmatism and in the work of Lewis Mumford. I actually discuss
Mumford’s essay described by Brooks in my book,* Bereft of Reason*, on page
147 forward.
I find the both the letter to the New York Times from
Gene Halton wrote:
I find the both the letter to the New York Times from Joseph Esposito and
Gary R's claim that Brooks misused Mumford uninformed and misguided and yet
you continue, Gene, that Mumford's allowance of the emotions was closer to
Peirce's outlook, and in that sense Brooks's
