Frances to Joseph and listers...
If "representamens" and "signs" are held to be separate and distinct,
this will certainly make the world more complex and its field of
logical study more complicated, and perhaps needlessly so. For now, my
task is to carefully read all the passages from the Peircea
Steven.
You wrote:
I do
resist conflating your views with those of Frances - I do observe,
however, your strong support for her arguments and the position that
she takes.
I do not offer "strong support" for Frances arguments nor for "the
position that she takes," but as previously mention
stand.
Joe Ransdell
- Original Message -
From: "Steven Ericsson Zenith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Peirce Discussion Forum"
Sent: Monday, March 13, 2006 12:41 AM
Subject: [peirce-l] Re: Representamens and Signs (was "Design and Semiotics
Revisited" was &qu
Dear Gary,
I do resist conflating your views with those of Frances - I do observe,
however, your strong support for her arguments and the position that she
takes.
Responding to your questions regarding Ben's proposal of a formal
"forth." I really cannot respond to Ben's proposal in isolatio
Steven,
Frances and I have very different views on most everything concerned
with Peirce. I hope you will resist conflating our views.
Steven Ericsson Zenith wrote:
Mostly I think the deconstruction of Peirce's writings concerning
representamen / sign is a waste of time and simply unable to
Dear List,
I was hoping to keep out of this. Mostly I think the deconstruction of
Peirce's writings concerning representamen / sign is a waste of time and
simply unable to produce any meaningful result.
This message by Frances simply makes no sense to me. How do you,
Frances or Gary, propos
Frances to Theresa...
You partly wrote that for Peirce the word "representamen" is more a
technical term than the word "sign" at least within logical contexts.
One thorn here is whether "signs" in some extended nonlogical sense
are to be admitted or allowed in the nonhuman biotic arena, or even i
Gary...
Thanks for your search and post.
As you implied, the distinction attempted to be made by me is in deed
the difference between "representamens" that are broader and prior to
all else in the world, including existent objects and "signs" and
semiosis, and that are independent of thought and m
Theresa, Frances & List,
Certainly Peirce at moments & in places suggests that there may be
representamen which are not signs, probably the clearest &
simplest example being
that famous sunflower.
CP 2.274. . .A Sign is a Representamen with a
mental Interpretant. Possibly there may be Represen
Frances, and list:
Frances, you say: "In
my guess, it may be that for Peirce in the evolution of things
"representamens" are more say monadic or dyadic and primitive then
"signs" where objects that act as "signs" require them to be say
triadic and the "thought" of organisms, while "representamens
A string search of "representamen or representamen's or representamens
or representamina" in the electronic CP yields the following passages (I
have not included comments by the editors of the CP). Note that what
follows are in most cases the complete paragraphs in which the terms
occur, but in
11 matches
Mail list logo
