Dea Folks,
I'm thinking it might be helpful to try to distinguish between the notions
of real and true. One can contrast real with imaginary and true with false.
Some further preliminary thoughts below. As in maybe---
Peirce proposes that being comes in three modes -- the potential, the
Ben, you say:
I don't pose a tetradic reduction thesis applicable to all relations. I
just say that there's a fourth semiotic term that isn't any of the classic
three.
A sign stands for an object to an interpretant on the basis of a
recognition. I think that an increasingly good reason to
Dear Ben,
Just to let you know that I've been reading and enjoying your many recent
comments. I haven't commented because I can't keep up with your pace --
but hopefully I will catch up some in time. I especially enjoying your
persistent examination of what it means to interpret
Dear Folks,
As promised, a quote from Leo Strauss' essay on Spinoza in Persecution and
the Art of Writing. Not at all the elitist view of reading the greats that
I had mistakingly come to think Strauss might have been advocating. In any
case I thought it might be fun to read in light of
Joe, Ben, List,
Joe wrote:
I don't see anything reductive in assuming that the analysis of cognition,
including recognition, can be done in terms of a signs, objects, and
interpretants as elements of or in cognitive processes, andif this involves
shifting phenomenological gears and
Joe, list,
[Joe] Ben, you say:
[Ben] I don't pose a tetradic reduction thesis applicable to all relations.
I just say that there's a fourth semiotic term that isn't any of the classic
three.
A sign stands for an object to an interpretant on the basis of a recognition. I
think that an
