RE: [PEIRCE-L] RE: signs, correlates, and triadic relations

Jon S., Jeff et al., Jon, thanks for jumping in here while I was occupied elsewhere. I’m essentially in agreement with what you say, but i’m responding here before reading subsequent posts in the thread, so for now I’ll just point to some Peirce texts relevant to these issues. The 1904

RE: [PEIRCE-L] RE: signs, correlates, and triadic relations

Jeff, some responses interleaved … Gary f. -Original Message- From: Jeffrey Brian Downard [mailto:jeffrey.down...@nau.edu] Sent: 7-Dec-15 15:35 Gary F., Gary R., List, Sorry for the errors in transcribing Nathan's table. I put it into my notes, and then added a bunch of

RE: [PEIRCE-L] RE: signs, correlates, and triadic relations

Jeff, responses interleaved again … Gary f. -Original Message- From: Jeffrey Brian Downard [mailto:jeffrey.down...@nau.edu] Sent: 8-Dec-15 14:10 Hello Jon S., Gary F., List, Jon, given what you say in 1&2 below, then we do have a question. Gary F. says that qualisigns

Re: [PEIRCE-L] RE: signs, correlates, and triadic relations

Gary, List: Based on the excerpt below, would a perceptual judgment be properly classified as a dicent sinsign? And would the percept itself be a rhematic indexical sinsign? Or is the percept not yet a sign at all? Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Professional Engineer, Amateur

RE: [PEIRCE-L] RE: signs, correlates, and triadic relations

Jon A.S., IF (I say If!) we can consider the percept as the subject of the perceptual judgment, then I think rhematic indexical sinsign is probably how I would classify it. However, I think we can just as well (maybe better) consider the percept as the object of the sign (the perceptual

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Fw: [peirce-society-list] Peirce Society Annual Meeting Program and Agenda

Jon Alan Schmidt asked: is publication of W9 still imminent? Any update on W11, which at one time was expected to be ready about a year after W9? I'll look into this and see what I can find out. Best, Gary R [image: Gary Richmond] *Gary Richmond* *Philosophy and Critical Thinking*

Re: [PEIRCE-L] RE: signs, correlates, and triadic relations

Thanks, Gary F. Continuing to muse out loud ... If the percept is not a sign of some other object, but rather the (only?) object of the sign that is the perceptual judgment, and "perceptual judgments are the first premises of all our reasonings" (CP5.116), then how are our thoughts (i.e.,

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Fw: [peirce-society-list] Peirce Society Annual Meeting Program and Agenda

Gary, List: Thank you for distributing this. Just curious, is publication of W9 still imminent? Any update on W11, which at one time was expected to be ready about a year after W9? Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman

RE: [PEIRCE-L] RE: signs, correlates, and triadic relations

Hi Gary F., List, G.F: Perhaps, but I think it’s better to take each essay in its own terms first before trying to map them onto each other. J.D. I appreciate the approach of taking each essay on its own terms first--especially when it comes to helping those who are relatively new to

RE: [PEIRCE-L] RE: signs, correlates, and triadic relations

Jon S., Gary F., Peirce does say that the percept serves, in the first instance, as the immediate object, where the qualisign is brought into a relation to the percipuum--so that the percipuum is determined to be in relation to the same object as the qualisign. Collecting a group of percepts

[PEIRCE-L] Fw: [peirce-society-list] Peirce Society Annual Meeting Program and Agenda

From: shannon...@gmail.com on behalf of Shannon Dea Sent: Tuesday, December 8, 2015 5:24 PM To: peirce-soci...@westga.edu Subject: [peirce-society-list] Peirce Society Annual Meeting Program and Agenda Dear

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Fw: [peirce-society-list] Peirce Society Annual Meeting Program and Agenda

Gary R, Jon A. S., list, Go to the History page at the new P.E.P. website (activate your javascript if you usually keep it turned off), and scroll down to "5. Planning for future history." http://www.iupui.edu/~peirce/#history Of course, the Peirce Edition Project is not exactly flush with

[PEIRCE-L] Double articulations in linguistics, biology, physics, and semiotics

Hi, (*1*) When I proposed the notion of the isomorphism between cell language (or cellese for short) and the human language (or humanese) in 1997 [1, 2, 3], one of the most striking features of both languages that caught my attention was the phenomenon of double articulations, i.e., letters

Re: [PEIRCE-L] RE: signs, correlates, and triadic relations

Hi Peircers, I am wondering if there are more than one kinds of *signs*, just as there are more than one kinds of *particles* in physics, chemistry, and biology. As I will detail in another post to follow, there is some theoretical reasons to believe that the principle of "*double articulation*"

[PEIRCE-L] Re: Relations & Their Relatives

Peirce List: JA:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/17890 GF:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/17894 JBD:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/17902 JA:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/17907

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Fw: [peirce-society-list] Peirce Society Annual Meeting Program and Agenda

Ben: Thanks for the link, but it provides no additional information beyond what was stated in the minutes--W9 "is slated for completion later in 2015," and nothing about the timetable for W11. I am aware that Irving Anellis, who was preparing copious annotations for the latter, passed away

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Fw: [peirce-society-list] Peirce Society Annual Meeting Program and Agenda

In fact, also read "4. The early twenty-first century" http://www.iupui.edu/~peirce/#history On 12/9/2015 9:25 PM, Benjamin Udell wrote: Gary R, Jon A. S., list, Go to the History page at the new P.E.P. website (activate your javascript if you usually keep it turned off), and scroll down to

Re: [PEIRCE-L] RE: signs, correlates, and triadic relations

Jon A, Gary F, Jeff, lists, You asked " . . . (i) would a perceptual judgment be properly classified as a dicent sinsign? And (ii) would the percept itself be a rhematic indexical sinsign? Or (iii) is the percept not yet a sign at all?" Let me try to answer these questions based on the ITR