RE: [PEIRCE-L] the essence and emptiness of meaning

Helmut and John, It may take me awhile to respond to either or both of your posts in this thread, because I have less time for reading and writing than I used to, and I’m deliberately slowing down at both. For instance, when I first noticed an affinity between the Merleau-Ponty quote near the

re: [PEIRCE-L] the essence and emptiness of meaning

Gary F, I enjoy browsing through your Turning Signs from time to time -- mainly because you put more emphasis on the questions than the answers. Any particular answers can become obsolete, but questions always remain fresh. One set of answers always leads to more questions. For any truly

Aw: [PEIRCE-L] the essence and emptiness of meaning

Gary F., List,   I like this topic. Maybe "essence" is the meaning of a thing, and a thing does not have a meaning by itself ("There is no thing in itself", who said that?), but a meaning attached to a thing, such as a Saussurian word, merely exists as a structural part of a system (like a

[PEIRCE-L] the essence and emptiness of meaning

List, The ongoing updating of points in my online book Turning Signs has generated another mini-essay, this time connecting texts from Buddhist philosophy, Merleau-Ponty’s phenomenology, biology and even physics with Peircean semiotic/logic and phaneroscopy. It may