Claudio, list,
It's fine with me if you or others modify my graphics for the purposes of
discussion, and you seem good at the graphics.
The discussion has advanced considerably beyond the point which you seem to
have reached. You seem to have isolated a few of my remarks and addressed them
Frances to Ben and Claudio and others:
Forgive the interjection, but here are some interpretations of mine on
Peircean ideas that may be related to your present concerns in signs
and my current interests in designs. Let me state my speculations and
invite corrections to them.
The initial
Larry:
Thanks for the extensive reply to my criticisms. Sorry for the delay in
responding but it will take me a few days more before I am ready to do so
properly. I've been reading the various material by you that provides
background understanding in some depth for what you say in your
Frances,
In Peirce's discussions of collateral experience, notice how he repeatedly says
that the sign, the interpretant, the sign system, do not convey experience of
the object. Instead, they convey meaning about the object.
Second correction! I must be tired. Sorry. I've gone over it extra carefully
this time. - Ben.
Sorry, one-word correction, but it's needed. It's indicated in the text. - Ben
- Original Message -
From: Benjamin Udell [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Peirce Discussion Forum peirce-l@lyris.ttu.edu
