[peirce-l] Re: A sign as First or third...

Claudio, List,    Just a small bibliographic collaboration.   Cheers,   J. LuracClaudio Guerri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Jorge, List,   I think that (even if I don't know too much about the exact way in which Lacan "met" Peirce) there is no discussion anymore that Lacan is LACAN a

[peirce-l] Re: 1st image of triangle of boxes (MS799.2)

Dear List: in respect for fund raising for the edition of CSP's papers, the Peirce Edition Project at Indianapolis is always in search of funds, Nathan Houser and everybody else there are working a lot for the work on the CSP's papers. more info can be found at their website: http://www.iupui.edu

[peirce-l] Re: Syntax and grammar of the signs

Robert, list,   Robert's "The Syntax of a Class of Signs" (scroll down to see) is interesting. Robert might helpfully clarify a few things.   1. Robert's conclusion is "We can define the syntax of a classe of signs as the part of the lattice of the ten classes of signs situated below this cla

[peirce-l] Re: First, second, third, etc.

Gary Richmond wrote: I will let you have the last word. Stay calm. JO: I am perfectly calm. well, I took a look at your powerpoint slides and read the article on the peirce-l site, to see what you meant with "opening your mind". I can tell that you straight-away that I hadn't missed anythi

[peirce-l] Re: 1st image of triangle of boxes (MS799.2)

Frances to Joe and others... There is a tendency for me to equate "immediate" or "immediacy" with all metaphysical quiddities and representamens that are not signs, as well as with all categorical primaries and firstnesses or firsts and qualities that exist to sense, but especially to align them w

[peirce-l] Re: First, second, third, etc.

I will let you have the last word. Stay calm. JO: I am perfectly calm. --- Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber archive@mail-archive.com

[peirce-l] Re: First, second, third, etc.

Gary Richmond wrote: I am appalled at the fact that one can confuse these two aspects, it reveals a complete misunderstanding of Peirce's categories. You' are "appalled" at certain scholars' "complete misunderstanding of  Peirce's categories." That is to say, you have closed your

[peirce-l] Re: First, second, third, etc.

I am appalled at the fact that one can confuse these two aspects, it reveals a complete misunderstanding of Peirce's categories. You' are "appalled" at certain scholars' "complete misunderstanding of  Peirce's categories." That is to say, you have closed your mind to anything but your own dec

[peirce-l] Re: First, second, third, etc.

Bernard Morand wrote: Jean-Marc Orliaguet wrote: Here is an article that I scanned some time ago, it was written by Andre de Tienne: http://www.medic.chalmers.se/~jmo/semiotic/Peirce_s_semiotic_monism.pdf the first page is missing, but I think than anyone interested in signs and in triadi

[peirce-l] Re: First, second, third, etc.

Jean-Marc Orliaguet wrote: Here is an article that I scanned some time ago, it was written by Andre de Tienne: http://www.medic.chalmers.se/~jmo/semiotic/Peirce_s_semiotic_monism.pdf the first page is missing, but I think than anyone interested in signs and in triadic relations should read

[peirce-l] First, second, third, etc.

Here is an article that I scanned some time ago, it was written by Andre de Tienne: http://www.medic.chalmers.se/~jmo/semiotic/Peirce_s_semiotic_monism.pdf the first page is missing, but I think than anyone interested in signs and in triadic relations should read it. to summarize: being a