Title: Message
bonjour,
maconception
spéculativesur ce sujet :
schéma de 8.334 http://perso.orange.fr/a/a/Peirce/le_signe_hexadique2.htm
Les
treillis de R.Marty :
http://perso.orange.fr/a/a/Peirce/le_treillis.htm
CordialementARNAUD Gilles
Joe and list,
I agree with the idea of being very cautious with the 10 trichotomies
classification. You are right I think in recalling that it was work in
progress for Peirce.
I would be very interested too in reading the material you are refering
to below if you can make it available to the
Bernard says::,
Joe and list,
I agree with the idea of being very cautious with the 10 trichotomies
classification. You are right I think in recalling that it was work in
progress for Peirce.
I would be very interested too in reading the material you are refering
to below if you can make it
Title: Message
Frances on Gilles to listers...
These semiotic diagrams in the posted message and in the linked website are
a welcome addition to the trichotomic topic, and will surely be the cause of
much more reflection.
The positing of "réel"for the "real" object is assumed here an
Title: Indianapolis Peirce Seminar by Helmut Pape
The Peirce Edition Project is pleased to present:
Why Knowing about Individuals Matters
Steps Toward a Peircean Methodology
of Identical Signs
By Helmut Pape
University of Bamberg
May 21
Abstract:
The sciences and philosophy
Title: CORRECTION for Peirce Seminar by Helmut Pape
Sorry, the date of the seminar got entered wrongly. It should be Tuesday, June 20.
--Cornelis de Waal
The Peirce Edition Project is pleased to present:
Why Knowing about Individuals Matters
Steps Toward a Peircean Methodology
of
Well, Gary, that's a rather dismissive comment.
(This reminds of a time I once told a good friend one of Hopkins's poems
was a tad bit precious. He didn't speak to me for two months.)
I'll just make a couple of comments and then let this go.
If you want to argue that the poem is a
Thanks very much for the quote Joe. The last sentence puzzles me. Will
have to think about it: seems like Peirce considered lately that he had
earlier put erroneously some considerations related to the (dynamic)
interpretant into his characterizations of the relation of the object
to the
So why would the word red be a
symbol??? To me it is also not. I would regard the word red more
as being a qualisign, which then would also fit the last sentence below. To me
the word red can not be a sinsign since it is not an actual
existing thing or event. And to me a quality (like red)
