be made in Portuguese or English until February 28, 2022 by
email (especiallinguisticfronti...@gmail.com). Articles must comply with
the publication rules of the Linguistic Frontiers journal:
https://sciendo-parsed-data-feed.s3.eu-central-1.amazonaws.com/LF/Instructions_for_Authors.pdf
--
Vinicius
in Portuguese or English until February 1, 2022 by
email (especiallinguisticfronti...@gmail.com). Articles must comply with
the publication rules of the Linguistic Frontiers journal:
https://sciendo-parsed-data-feed.s3.eu-central-1.amazonaws.com/LF/Instructions_for_Authors.pdf
--
Vinicius Romanini, Ph.D
Jon, list
JAS: What would be the degenerate classes for the S-O
(iconic/indexical/symbolic) and S-O-I (abducent/inducent/deducent)
relations? Is it feasible instead to make the third move be for the S-I
(rheme/dicisign/argument or seme/pheme/delome) relation, as suggested by
Peirce's 1903
Jon, list
> [image: image.png]
>
>
> JAS: There are genuine qualisigns (1), sinsigns (2), and legisigns (3);
> degenerate altersigns (1/2) and replicas (2/3); and doubly degenerate
> holisigns (1/2/3).
>
> Exact. I use a different notation: qualisigns (1), sinsigns (2) and
legisigns (3);
gt; effective communication to other minds.
>>
>> VR: When we look at a painting by Pollock for the first time, we cognize
>> patterns that produce feelings for their final interpretant.
>>
>>
>> Again, in my view, those *actual *feelings are by definition a
>> *
. de 2021 às 12:37, Vinicius Romanini
escreveu:
> Dear colleagues,
>
> This is an interesting thread. I have been working on these questions for
> a while now.
> My ideas are inspired by Peirce but not exactly identical to Peirce's.
> Tony Jappy once called me a Neo-Peircean
al
>>>>> thought."
>>>>>
>>>>> Perhaps this is the sort of matter which can make one feel that it
>>>>> might be better *to focus on the process of semiosis* rather than on
>>>>> the terminology forged in semeiotic gr
%B3n_de_Peirce_para_la_teor%C3%ADa_de_la_comunicaci%C3%B3n
Best,
--
Vinicius Romanini, Ph.D.
Professor of Communication Studies
School of Communications and Arts
University of Sao Paulo, Brazil
www.minutesemeiotic.org
www.semeiosis.com.br
Skype:vinicius_romanini
-
PEIRCE-L
Claudio
--
Prof. Dr. Arch. Claudio F. Guerri
Facultad de Arquitectura, Diseño y Urbanismo
Universidad de Buenos Aires
E-mail: claudiogue...@gmail.com
Vinicius Romanini escribió el 15/07/2015 a las 02:42 p.m.:
Dear Spanish-speaking friends
I recently wrote a chapter to a book
that the dynamic objects *of
the facts we’re talking about* are necessarily general.
Gary f.
*From:* Vinicius Romanini [mailto:vinir...@gmail.com]
*Sent:* May 18, 2015 11:42 AM
Dear Gary, Stan, list
Gary, I agree with all you say but when you declare that The dynamic
object of a sign
*
observation (as an instance of sense perception) and the *representation*
of that instance (which assigns to its singular subject a general
predicate, and thus constructs a “fact”).
Gary f.
*From:* Vinicius Romanini [mailto:vinir...@gmail.com]
*Sent:* May 18, 2015 3:48 PM
*To:* Gary Fuhrman
*Cc
consideration. At least that
is the way I seem to experience things myself. Perhaps others are different.
John
--
Vinicius Romanini, Ph.D.
Professor of Communication Studies
School of Communications and Arts
University of Sao Paulo, Brazil
www.minutesemeiotic.org
www.semeiosis.com.br
Frank, list
F: Well, I don't really agree that the legisign's final interpretant must
be a third, since at this time I prefer to lean more on Peirce's sketch in
the last letter to Welby, wherein he makes the final interpretant to have
three possible modes just as any other aspect or respect
Romanini, Ph.D.
Professor of Communication Studies
School of Communications and Arts
University of Sao Paulo, Brazil
www.minutesemeiotic.org
www.semeiosis.com.br
Skype:vinicius_romanini
--
Vinicius Romanini, Ph.D.
Professor of Communication Studies
School of Communications and Arts
University
Jeff, list
Jeff said: Having taken a look at MS 7, I'd like to ask a quick question
about the first assertion. What is Vinicius claiming when he says that
icons don't *enter* our concepts as such? Looking at page 15 of the MS, I
see Peirce saying the following: An icon cannot be a
Cathy, list
Cathy: This post is on the matter of how a sign operates, specifically
the dynamic object. Just to complicate the discussion a little more, there
is a previously unpublished piece by Joe Ransdell on this matter in the
upcoming special edition of the Transactions dedicated to him
. But I don't see how you are
connecting that with logical depth or with iconicity. Can you explain
further?
gary f.
*From:* Vinicius Romanini [mailto:vinir...@gmail.com]
*Sent:* 1-Apr-14 4:57 PM
*To:* Gary Fuhrman
*Cc:* Peirce List
*Subject:* Re: [PEIRCE-L] de Waal Seminar: Chapter 5
the Normal Interpretant, or effect that
would be produced on the mind by the Sign after sufficient development of
thought.
--
Vinicius Romanini, Ph.D.
Professor of Communication Studies
School of Communications and Arts
University of Sao Paulo, Brazil
www.minutesemeiotic.org
www.semeiosis.com.br
Dear Gary R., list
Thanks for your thoughts, Gary R. Commenting on what I wrote, you said:
* V: Besides that, a sign might have several objects (or a complex object),
but I don't see how an object cannot give rise to several signs. *
Gary: As I read the snippet from Kees' chapter, he is not
a message not to PEIRCE-L
but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the line UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L in the
BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm.
--
Vinicius Romanini, Ph.D.
Professor of Communication Studies
School of Communications and Arts
University of Sao Paulo
20 matches
Mail list logo
