Ben Udell wrote:
Anyway, my semiotic four are, instead, object, sign, interpretant,
recognizant.
I don't know how Peirce and others have missed the distinct and irreducible
logical role of verification. I keep an eye open regarding that question, that's
about all. I don't have some hidden
Ben Says:
I don't know how Peirce and others have missed
the distinct and irreducible logical role of verification. I keep an eye open
regarding that question, that's about all. I don't have some hidden opinion on
the question. Tom Short argued that there is a problem with answering how it
Joe, Gary, Jim, list,
[Joe] Ben Says:
[Ben] I don't know how Peirce and others have missed the distinct
and irreducible logical role of verification. I keep an eye open regarding that
question, that's about all. I don't have some hidden opinion on the question.
Tom Short argued that there
Gary, Joe, Jim, list,
(continued,3rd part)
[Gary] Again, you maintain that the "logically determinational role" of
"such recognition" cannot be denied and yet I can't even find it! For me it is
less a matter of its being denied than my not even missing it (clearly you've
fixed your own
Joe, Gary, Jim, list,
I forgot that I had wanted to make a remark on the Pragmatic Maxim in the
present connection.
[Joe] I forgot to say something about the supposed problem of
distinguishing sense from nonsense. That's what the pragmatic maxim is all
about, isn't it?
The Pragmatic
Ben:
JR: I must say that I think you are missing
mypoint because of some mistaken assumption that I can't identify.
The reason I gave the simple example of a common sense verification was to make
as clear as I could that there is no deep logical point involved. Consider
again my simple
Ben, Joe, Jim, list,
Ben, not having gotten your argument for a putative necessary fourth
semeiotic element earlier--and I've certainly tried--your most recent
comments have also not helped me get any closer to what you apparently
find near-obvious, or at least "simple." You write:
[BU] It
