List,
I am forwarding information regarding a memorial for Arnold Shepperson.
In addition, I have just heard from Keyan Tomaselli that rights to
publish the Safundi article he co-authored with Arnold have been granted
so that it may be placed on Arisbe. Links to other articles may also be
pro
Gary,
I would tend to agree with your analysis below, while I was especially
responsive to your interpreting the Gita in terms of what is real (as
opposed to actual), that it refers to types (not tokens)You wrote:
GF:. . . . . . . . . . . . . In Peircean terms, the scripture must refer
t
ical aspect.
I'm not familiar with Millikan's work, but will take a look at the
chapter you mentioned. I too am "convinced that Arnold really was on to
something" and would hope to try to grasp at least a little of where
this "something" was headed
Best,
Gary
At 0
Bill Bailey wrote:
I think the appropriate thing for the list is for Gary F to elaborate
on the
close parallels he finds between Peirce's ideal of scientific method
and the
bodhisattva ideal of Mahayana Buddhism. As you point out, that is
very much
on topic.
I thought perhaps that Gary had
Bill and Gary,
Bill Bailey wrote:
This is not the venue for debating the similarities and contrasts
between traditional Occident and Orient.
However, Gary's comment that he sees a close parallel to Peirce's ideal
of scientific method (or of the motivation for it) in the bodhisattva
ideal o
the theories used in this paper, are
too many to acknowledge individually. It goes without saying that my
use of their contributions, and those of the named individuals and
instiutions, is solely my own responsibility.
Again, I am deeply saddened at the loss of this fine man and most
ethical of Peir
Call for Papers
ICCS'07 Conceptual Structures: Knowledge Architectures for Smart Applications
22 - 27 July, Sheffield Hallam University, Sheffield, United Kingdom
http://www.iccs.info
The 15th International Conference on Conceptual Structures (ICCS 2007)
is the latest in a series of annual
Call for Papers
14th Workshop on Logic, Language, Information and Computation
(WoLLIC'2007)
Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
July 2-5, 2007
WoLLIC is an annual international forum on inter-dis
Jim Piat wrote:
Way cool graphic!
Glad you liked it. Here are a few others suitable to a philosophical
list.
And finally, a related perceptual matter. You've probably seen this
before, but it's always somewhat amazing to me (does anyone have a
theory as to w
Darrel, list,
You wrote:
DS:
It would seem my teaching of letters and words may not have had learning
in my mind, hence; I am not a teacher.
It seems to me that a parent entering into this kind of dialogue with
his child certainly has learning "in his mind" at that moment
(even if perhaps no
I forgot to include the graphic. Here it is.
Gary Richmond wrote:
Arnold, Jim, list,
I hope you won't mind my posting my response to your personal email,
Arnold, as your comments seem most pertinent to the subject of the
thread.
[Note: off-list I sent Arnold a graphic image
Arnold, Jim, list,
I hope you won't mind my posting my response to your personal email,
Arnold, as your comments seem most pertinent to the subject of the
thread.
[Note: off-list I sent Arnold a graphic image: the reflection of
teaching as learning which is attached here and should appear at
Arnold, Jim, List,
Thanks for your good responses especially as there hasn't been much yet
to my proposing an inquiry into pragmatic inquiry (perhaps I posted too
many Peirce quotations?) But given the near central importance of
inquiry to pragmatism (note for example that in Peirce's Classifi
Dear Jim,
I'm glad you liked my remarks, while I fully agree with yours. When
authentic inquiry goes on in the classroom both teacher and students
learn together and from each other.
Best,
Gary
Jim Piat wrote:
Dear Gary,
I like what you've said about
teaching and learni
Vinicius
Gary Richmond <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
List,
Preparing for the new college term, and needing to think this Fall not
just about my students' learning, but as I am developing & leading
a faculty seminar as well (titled "Buildi
List,
Preparing for the new college term, and needing to think this Fall not
just about my students' learning, but as I am developing & leading
a faculty seminar as well (titled "Building Information Literacy in
the Disciplines") I am compelled now to think also about learning
in relation to
List,
<>
I couldn't help but think of Peirce's comments on intellectual hope in
relation to the "social impulse" as I read in this letter in The New
York Times today that "Unsettling as it might be, the future is
unpredictable, and surprises are inevitable. Hope [as opposed to
optimism] is a
Charles, list,
One of the Peirce quotations in your "as if" post strongly supports
your notion, reiterated here, that it is possible and, indeed,
desirable to make a double trichotomic distinction of Sign - External
Object
- Interpreter and Sign - Immediate Object - Interpretant, and that
Benjamin Udell wrote:
In any case, you've made
an assertion, not an argument, and I've made arguments, including many
on this thread. Rather than improvising a rehash of them to a very
general assertion, I refer you to them.
Your arguments which seem apodictic to you have not ever made much
Benjamin Udell wrote:
Object and
signs are roles. They are logical roles, and their distinction is a
logical distinction
As I see it, it's not that simple because of the dynamical object, the
fact of inter-communication as well as internal inference, etc.
Charles may m
Here's my take (reflecting Charles' 2 semiosical triads diagrammed in
relation to each other)--
outer semiosical triad: . . inner semiosical triad:
. . . . . . . . . . . . . sign
sign: . . . . . . . . . |>
interpretant
|> interpreter . . .
Dear Vinicius,
As you know I've followed the progress of your work for several years
now, especially your diagrams classifying the 66 signs. It is
impossible, but I wish I could be in Brazil to be present at your
defense, to join you and your extraordinary committee and other notable
attendees
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
Ben, Joe, Jim, List
Benjamin Udell wrote:
I don't see how the logically
determinational role of such recognition [as represented by a fourth
proxy element] can be arguably denied
and so I will stop trying to so argue. But I don't see it. Let me at
least give an attempt at a
Joe, Ben, Jim, List,
I've begun to reread and in some cases read for the first time
Christopher Hookway's papers as he is to be an invited speaker at
ICCS07 at Sheffield University where he is a member of the faculty.
There's an interesting and valuable paper of his in the Winter/Spring
2002 T
Joe, Ben, list,
Joseph Ransdell wrote:
I hope Stjernfelt's paper is made generally available soon. He
has an important paper in Transactions of the Peirce Society 36 (Summer
2000) called "Diagrams as Centerpiece of a Peircean Epistemology".
Stjernfelt's paper,"Two Iconicity Notions in P
Ben,
You wrote:
[Ben Udell] I had the impression that Peirce says somewhere that _every_ sign is a surrogate for its object, but I can't find it. It might be useful for somebody to do a search on the CD-ROM edition for the word "surrogate." In ordinary English, one could say that insofar a
Dear Luis and List,
Sorry. I thought this was an off-list post.
Gary
Gary Richmond wrote:
Dear Luis,
Thanks for your comments. While the discussion was taking place on
Peirce-l I half thought you'd post something (I could have used your
help!) But now I see you were away d
Dear Luis,
Thanks for your comments. While the discussion was taking place on
Peirce-l I half thought you'd post something (I could have used your
help!) But now I see you were away during the exchange. I think
Jean-Marc Orliaguet likes to "debate" while I prefer to "inquire," and
I don't thin
that which might benefit the
good cause, lead us to success in such matters. It may be that we will
fail, but at least we will have tried in good faith and camaraderie.
Best,
Gary
Best wishes,
Jim Piat
-
Original Message -
From:
Gary
Richmond
To:
Pei
Jim,
Thanks for your lovely notes. But what in the hell does this mean?
PS -- it's a third you damn
blockhead!
Best,
Gary
Jim Piat wrote:
Dear Gary.
Thanks for your generous and kind
words. You inspire me to try to follow your example of courage and
good will.
Jean-Marc, List,
I suppose that one is permitted one additional word after he has
granted his opponent the *last word* in a matter, but only if he might
want to confirm something his interlocutor has said and where he has
come to see that he was wrong. Jean-Marc wrote:
my
comments have been no
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
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
hing that connects three things
into one)
No, I meant trichotomic as Peirce uses it in such works as Trichotomic
and A Guess at the Riddle. I mean it exactly as Peirce uses it.
Jean-Marc, as did Ben earlier, I feel the game is over. But thank you
again for helping to provide the opportunity to thi
involved, that one or another can
mediate
the others?
-----Original
Message-
From: Gary Richmond
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Saturday, June
24, 2006 3:29
PM
To: Peirce Discussion
Forum
Subject: [peirce-l]
Re: A sign as
First or third...
Jim,
List,
I've been enj
s far as I can tell--and even if he sees the categorial
matter somewhat differently, order does matter for both of us).
Gary
Jean-Marc Orliaguet wrote:
Gary Richmond wrote:
Jean-Marc,
You wrote:
1) we have the terms 'second', 'third'
(without capi
sition put forth by Jean-Marc. Could it be that Peirce's
classifications of signs accommodates (my word for the day) both points
of view?
No, I reject Jean-Marc's analysis for the most part for the reasons I
offer below.
Jean-Marc wrote:
Gary Richmond wrote:
...btw,
do you or any
Jean-Marc,
You wrote:
1) we have the terms 'second', 'third' (without capital letter) without
referent.
The text which originally prompted this discussion is:
1. 274. A Sign, or Representamen, is a First
which stands in such a genuine triadic relation to a Second, called its
Object, as to be
Jim, Claudio, Ben, List,
Jim I too have benefited from Cluadio's musings, and while I don't
necessarily agree with all his conclusions, I think he makes many
important points in consideration of his juxtaposing two quotations
which seem at first blush contradictory.
1. "A _Sign_, or _Repr
us importance for
thought that I attribute to them, and it would seem that no division of
theories of metaphysics could surpass in importance a division based
upon the consideration of what ones of the three categories each of
different metaphysical systems have fully admitted as real constituents
o
Jim, Ben, List,
Jim Piat wrote:
Yes, but Peirce also wrote (chapter 20 Trichotomic of The
Essential Peirce Vol 1 page 281 line two of paragraph two) that "A
sign is a third mediating between the mind addressed and the object
represented".
So I find this confusing.
There are so many
Ben, list,
It seems to me that you are quite right about the "distinctly
un-English" use of the ordinals 'First', 'Second' and 'Third' by Peirce
in the passages being considered. Capitalization is used for 'terms
defined' as he writes, for example, at the beginning of the NA and
elsewhere
;s and my own, for example) would be considered. Peirce suggested
once that a categorial analysis could never be 'wrong' because it only
tried to offer hints and suggestions which might prove
valuable. And this is all I'm offering in the present analysis--what I
hope may be helpful "hints & suggestions."
Gary Richmond
---
Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber archive@mail-archive.com
Jerry,
Here's the 'classic' presentation of qualisign, sinsign, legisign (why
they are given in the order of the subject of the thread I don't know,
but the categorial order I just gave them in is as to their firstness,
secondness, and thirdness). In any event, this is the order in which
Pe
Luis, Jean Marc, Ben, List,
It would probably at this point be valuable for those who are not
familiar with Marty's work (and who are not fluent in French as I
certainly am not) to at least take a look at the Summary in English of
his Foliated Semantic Networks: Concepts, Facts, Qualities post
Ben, Joe, list,
I would highly recommend for those interested in further exploring the
themes of this discussion--and, yes, thanks very much to Joe, Ben and
others for providing such a wealth of valuable information, diagrams,
etc.--the fourth chapter of Luis Merkle's dissertation to which he
Joseph Ransdell wrote:
Now, I believe he reads them in [the order "rhematic iconic qualisign"] because it is more awkward in English to say them in the other order. That is, it is natural to say, for example, "rhematic indexical legisign" but very forced and awkward to say "legisignal index
Dennis Leri wrote:
Joe,
It may depend on your browser. Firefox and Internet Explorer opened
it while Safari didn't.
Netscape didn't open it either. Gary
Dennis Leri
On Thursday, June 15, 2006, at 11:06 AM, Joseph Ransdell wrote:
I pushed every button I could find and nothing happene
Workshop.
The workshop will start with a most interesting philosophical
perspective on interoperability delivered by our keynote speaker, Gary
Richmond, City University of New York. After that, 8 papers will be
presented by representatives of groups that are confronted with a wide
range
Ben, list,
You wrote:
Actually, the way I in which I checked was by
literally flipping Robert Marty's diagram around in PowerPoint
That is to say, by diagram manipulation and observation leading to
fresh insight, an abduction regarding relations--exactly what Peirce
sees as the value of diagra
responding, please remember to delete all
unneeded graphics & text.)
Gary Richmond wrote,
> (one I believe he hasn't posted yet, but which I hope he
will, shows a possible correspondence between Robert's lattice
structure...
The graphic which I already posted (and
Joe, list,
I want to correct something in my last post which could cause
confusion. I wrote:
That Peirce apparently included this triangular
on the back of a letter
which included a very tentative presentation of his very different 10
trichotomies of signs has I think resulted in confusing tha
Joe,
By now you've read my corrected and completed post so that I hope some
of what you asked is addressed in that corrected post. Just a point or
so more for now. You wrote:
Would you mind reposting the diagram you refer to below?
It is my trikonic diagram of the 10 classes of signs whi
Claudio, Ben, Robert, Bernard, Joe, list,
First, sorry for sending out that last incomplete message by mistake.
Claudio, so good to see you on the list again. I too am pleased to see
all the
diagrammatic discussion and especially some of Ben's abductions
relating diagrams (for example the one
Claudio, Ben, Robert, Bernard, Joe, list,
Claudio, so goo to see you on list. I too am pleased to see all the
diagrammatic discussion and especially some of Ben's abductions relating
diagrams (one I believe he hasn't posted yet, but which I hope he will,
shows a possible correspondence between
get to the poem, let me know.
Gary
-Original Message-----
From: Gary Richmond [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Sun 6/11/2006 10:18 PM
To: Peirce Discussion Forum
Cc:
Subject: [peirce-l] Re: No mental eyes of erst e'er hads't thou shone
Neal,
Thanks for suggesting that there mig
Neal,
Thanks for suggesting that there might be a relationship between these
two texts.
Neal Bruss wrote:
Any poem that Peirce wrote does warrant an interpretive paraphrase. With that, one might seek relationships with two poetic texts that Peirce quotes often, "Of thine eye I am eyebeam
iled gnomon had not splayed as prone" and "Pale as the
pallors tip this pile o' pillow" read like they were written by the
Monty Python Troupe. This poem is not just bad, it is hilariously,
over-the-top bad.
Creath Thorne
Gary Richmond writes:
No mental eyes of erst e
Ben wrote:
qualisign = tone = potisign
sinsign = token = actisign
legisign = type = famisign
While these are often called alternate names of the same things,
Gary has said that they aren't just sets of synonyms but instead
reflect some differences of conception. I.e., for some purp
No mental eyes of erst e'er hads't thou shone;
Thy entailed gnomon had not splayed as prone;
Not, at all, fact borne ideas sprayed as grown,
Nor Man as halo'd tower of nature known.
Thy fearful lift's bed rock stepped arbor type--
Sight bearing wake's upholding spinelike gripe,
In the last inhaul
Thanks you Ben and Bernard!
Gary
Benjamin Udell wrote:
Thank you,
Bernard! -Ben
Qualisign
Sinsign
Legisign
Icon
Index
Symbol
Victoria & Cassiano,
I agree that Cassiano's is a sane, sound, and even
evolutionary way of looking at entelechy. Peirce too saw
that Kant and Bergson were on the right metaphysical track,
process and vitalism, not mechanism and predetermination.
The resultant 'emergent principle' is thus the
Phillipe Martin posted this announcement by Larry Sanger of the TextOp
project (part of the larger Digital Universe project discussed on the
list recently) with the purpose of codifying "great works" for
electronic distribution. In this model the chunks of information are
paragraphs. It does no
Ben, Joe, Jim, Mats, list,
I've been wanting to address some of the issues of this post of Ben's
but, feeling under the weather, I can't yet tackle it with any
certainty that I'll contribute to clarifying any of these. I did come
across an interesting passage today which, however, might shed s
Jim & List,
Jim Piat wrote:
My Websters gives D. Cn. L. as doctor of cannon law.
Well, I know Peirce used a few military metaphors, but "cannon law"?
:-) All kidding aside, the American Heritage Dictionary offers this:
DCL
abbr.
Doctor of Canon Law
Doctor of Civil Law
T
Jim, Joe,
D.C.L could also be "doctor of canon law."
Gary
PS A gentle reminder not to include whole message, especially long
quotations, in responses :-)
Jim Piat wrote:
Dear Joe,
In my Websters the meaning of D.C.L. is given as "doctor of civil
law", but I don't find it in Black's Law d
Jerry,
You asked Ben:
Can you guide me toward your work on fours?
Short answer: The Tetrast http://tetrast.blogspot.com/
Gary
Jerry LR Chandler wrote:
Dear Ben / Gary:
First, my apologies to Gary. My dyslexia kicks in at the strangest
times. I read "Gary" and typed "Jim"!
Second, I
es (not 'assumes') me that
the
mathematics is sound. .
Again, my apologies.
Gary
Gary Richmond wrote:
[off-list]
Hi Ben,
Hey, what happened to your feedback on my paper? Anyhow, probably best
since I made some significant changes yesterday. BUT, will you be
available to
Jerry,
Gary Richmond's view doesn't technically contradict Gary F.'s statements, since Gary F.'s statements were qualified by the possibility of somebody's producing evidence, though Gary F. obviously seemed doubtful about the idea of the chemical "connection." I f
Alexander Repenning, University of Colorado, USA
* Gary Richmond, City University of New York, USA
* Munindar P. Singh, North Carolina State University, USA
* Peter Spyns, Ministry of Flanders, Belgium
* Ronald Stamper, London, UK
* York Sure, University of Karlsruhe, Germany
Gary,
Your concluding comment:
We are worlds in conversation, turning still.
Sometimes we spin in synchrony and sometimes we don't. When we do, we
have structural coupling, as Maturana and Varela called it. And when we
don't, we may have a chance to learn something new.
for some reason brou
Jim, and all,
I've been very much enjoying reading this thread and, indeed, all the
activity of late on the list has been of interest to me. Alas, I
continue to be up to my neck in work so I can't actively participate in
any of the threads at the moment (a condition which no doubt some here
mi
Jim, Ben, list
Jim wrote:
An object is anything that can be represented. Abstract objects such
as relations also have forms and locations that can be connoted and
denoted as discussed below.
It is my view (and I think Peirce's) that words or symbols such as
"not", "probably", "if" etc re
List,
Comparing the attached two diagrams may assist in beginning a discussion
of Robert Marty's use of elementary category theory and Rudolph Wille's
lattices in the lattice structures Marty's developed in relation to
Peirce's phenomenology.. Marty takes Terry Winograd's simple (but,
admitte
Jim Piat wrote:
Which is to say that form, substance
and function are inseparable relations in the sense of being
inextricable aspects of the same thing -- being itself. They are
defined in terms of one another and there is no way around it. The
most fundamental constituents of any system
Jim, list,
You wrote:
JP: So for me the question becomes. . .how do
we have both entities and relations. Seems to me that one or the other
is not fundamental. I think the Piercean approach that all being is
merely relations is more satisfying. Some of these relations (of
relations) we relat
List,
I sent John Sowa Irving Arellis' message of 4/30 asking him if he'd
share his thoughts on category theory in relation to Peirce with the
list. His remarks appear below.
Gary
Gary,
I would say that the description of category theory by
Irving A. is a reasonable explanation of the subje
Gary, list,
I'm looking forward to reading your work on intentionality and would
encourage all here to read that most extraordinary paper you
co-authored with Salthe, which I hope to discuss with you & others
at a later date. The Cosmic Bellows: The Big Bang and The Second Law
would seem to me
Bernard,
Thanks for the CfP, a succinct and relatively straight-forward summary
of certain key Knowledge Management issues. For those interested see also:
M. Smits and A. de Moor (2004). Measuring Knowledge Management
Effectiveness in Communities of Practice. In Proc. of the 37th Annual
Ha
term proto-sign has been suggested by Gary
Richmond," but does not note that I coined this term while expressing
exasperation at their referring to the elements of their own dyadic
and, in fact, wholly Boolean structure as if they were actual,
embodied signs.
That is what
for me is at stake.
Auke,
Thank you for providing the link to Sarbo's Proto-Signs piece.
http://www.cs.ru.nl/research/reports/full/ICIS-R05031.pdf
This will certainly be very helpful for those who are interested in
examining Sarbo's 9-adic proto-semiotic
I had
better phrased it thus: by the addition...sneak
Auke,
Auke van Breemen wrote:
<> Well, it seems we are
going in different directions at the moment.
- You are
involved in studying semiosis along lines of sign types, while I am
wondering how to understand the process by which a sign that offers
itself and is capable of producing
Auke,
Another inter-paragraphical response, then we can both get back to
work towards our deadlines :-)
Auke van Breemen wrote:
<>[GR] But the so-called Welby classification involves the
consideration of the role of the interpretant in semeiotic moving
theoretically somewhat far beyond the
been achieved by Peirce
in both the analyses of secondness as such (mechanism, etc.) and
thirdness as such (mind). So I will continue to argue as forcefully as
I can against Sarbo's program, and for both these reasons.
<>Since I am co-author of Natural Grammar your remark
below also applies
e list may know, I have also found Sarbo's "proto-signs"
problematic in part for reasons not unrelated to the above analysis..
In a recent paper, "Natural Grammar," Sarbo comments that "We gladly
acknowledge that the term proto-sign has been suggested by
Gary Ric
Steven Ericsson Zenith wrote:
BTW: A "tool interoperability" workshop
is not something that I would
expect anyone here to find interesting - even if the tools do deal with
"conceptual structures" - which means, in this case, schemas and their
instances.
Steven,
I'm giving the keynote address
Incorrect url: the 'ontology': (computer science) link should be:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontology_%28computer_science%29
---
Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber archive@mail-archive.com
Auke,
Thank you for your interesting comments and for the quite pertinent
Peirce quotation reminding us "that the essential function of a sign is
to render inefficient relations efficient." There seems to me to be a
great power in that notion both generally in semeiotic, but also and in
par
Joe, Ben, List,
I agree with Joe that Ben should be at the ICCS workshop!
Finding your discussion of considerable interest and thinking that Aldo
de Moor might as well, I wrote the following: to him (I'd forwarded Aldo
most of that earlier exchange, not reproduced below).
Hi, Aldo,
FYI, Be
Workshop: Sunday, July 16, 2006
=== Invited Speaker
"Philosophy Meets Design"
. Gary Richmond, City University of New York, USA:
=== Program Chairs
. Aldo de Moor, STARLab, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Belgium
([EMAIL PROTECTED])
. Simon Polovina, Sheffield Hallam Un
http://www.abdn.ac.uk/bestiary/translat/21r.hti
Of the lamb
The lamb is called agnus possibly from the Greek word agnos,
pious. Some think that it gets the Latin form of its name because, more
than any other animal, it recognises, agnoscere, its mother, so
much so that, even if it strays in th
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
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
an one really equate representation with
the representamen? Perhaps. I don't know. It remains a question
in my mind
Gary Richmond
Joseph Ransdell wrote:
Neither Theresa nor I
disagree with what you are saying about the vernacular word "sign"
being more narr
Joe, Frances, and List,
Joseph Ransdell wrote:
I can only say that I
find Frances's usage of words so idiosyncratic in sentence after
sentence that I cannot figure out any way to restate her view in
sentences that make any sense to me.
Perhaps because at one point several years ago I s
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
rms
occur, but in a very few cases I have excluded a continuation of the
paragraph which did not seem relevant, or added a short paragraph
preceding or following the one employing the term. This has not been
indicated in any special way.
Gary Richmond
CP 1.480 Cross-Ref:††
480. Genuine tria
Joe, Frances, list:
Joe, thanks for your response as it points to an aspect of the cause of
my "strongly worded rhetoric," as Steven phrased it, which I did not
address in my comments to him and which I refrained from adding to
those comments precisely since you had not by then responded. As
a
List,
Here's the opening and conclusion of a New York Times article today on
an aspect of the subject of this thread.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/12/business/yourmoney/12digi.html?ex=1142830800&en=30176f24d523ea78&ei=5070&emc=eta1
March 12, 2006 The New York Times
Digital Domain: Anonym
1 - 100 of 169 matches
Mail list logo
