den 4. maj 2015 18.45
Til: Peirce-L 1 PEIRCE-L@list.iupui.edumailto:PEIRCE-L@list.iupui.edu
Cc: Frederik Stjernfelt stj...@hum.ku.dkmailto:stj...@hum.ku.dk
Emne: Re: [PEIRCE-L] RE: [biosemiotics:8567] Re: Natural
List, Frederik:
On May 4, 2015, at 8:46 AM, Howard Pattee wrote:
How do
'
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] RE: [biosemiotics:8567] Re: Natural
At 09:49 AM 5/2/2015, Gary Fuhrman wrote:
Frederik, you wrote,
[So here I agree with Howard (and I guess P would do so as well) that the right
direction is to generalize the observer-phenomenon distinction so as to cover
all
1'
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] RE: [biosemiotics:8567] Re: Natural
At 09:49 AM 5/2/2015, Gary Fuhrman wrote:
Frederik, you wrote,
[So here I agree with Howard (and I guess P would do so as well) that
the right direction is to generalize the observer-phenomenon distinction
so as to cover all
At 09:49 AM 5/2/2015, Gary Fuhrman wrote:
Frederik, you wrote,
[So here I agree with Howard (and I guess P would do so as well) that the
right direction is to generalize the observer-phenomenon distinction so
as to cover all biological organisms.]
GF: I agree about the right direction, but I
List, Frederik:
On May 4, 2015, at 8:46 AM, Howard Pattee wrote:
How do the Peircean signs and triads avoid facing the subject-object relation
(which Peirce himself called obscure and mysterious)?
Howard has posed an excellent and incisive question with far-ranging
implications! Thanks.
Seems to me that in a triad you are acknowledging that it is a unity and
that everything in it is subsumed to the point that such things as subject
and object are if there at all blurred. The object of a triad might be seen
as an expression, an action or both, following the Pragmatic Maxim -- the
Frederik, you wrote,
[So here I agree with Howard (and I guess P would do so as well) that the right
direction is to generalize the observer-phenomenon distinction so as to cover
all biological organisms.]
I agree about the right direction, but I don’t see that Howard does, because he
