: [peirce-l] Re: Sinsign,
Legisign, Qualisign - help!
Dear Jim, Rob and List:
Before turning to Jim's post, a couple of comments about the Salzburg
conferences.
The Whitehead conference attracted about three hundred (300!!)
participants. The Chines
Dear Jerry,
I agree my attempt to explained handedness was faulty. Here is the Peirce
reference to the issue. Glad the conference was such a success.
Best wishes,
Jim Piat
"Take any fact in physics of the triadic kind, by which I mean a fact
which can only be defined by simultaneous refere
Dear Jim, Rob and List:Before turning to Jim's post, a couple of comments about the Salzburg conferences.The Whitehead conference attracted about three hundred (300!!) participants. The Chinese are keenly interested in Whitehead. It was rumored that they intend to establish 25 research institutes
nt"), however, is what correlates to the info-theoretic
recipient. (Note: Information theory also places channels between the stages,
especially between encoding & decoding.)
Best, Ben
----- Original Message -
From: Jim Piat
To: Peirce Discussion Forum
Sent: Tuesday, July 04, 2006 12:
Ben wrote:
>>A 3-D object can be so rotated in 4-D space as to turn it
opposite-handed. I remember an episode of the original _Outer Limits_
about it -- some man ended up with two right hands :-).>>
My response:
Thanks, Ben. I'm not surprised to hear from
you on
Wilfred wrote:
"Is it not the case that
even notions of left and right in a triadic Peirce relation require the
consideration of a multiple relation of multiple directions? I mean, even if the
left and the right are set (like A-B) and (B--A) in the example below,
there are still ma
Is it not the case that even
notions of left and right in a triadic Peirce relation require the
consideration of a multiple relation of multiple directions? I mean, even if
the left and the right are set (like A-B) and (B--A) in the example
below, there are still many more X’s (si
Dear Jerry, Folks--
For the fun of it, I'd like to try my hand at a
biological application of Peirce's categories (and loosely speaking his notions
qualisign, sinsign, and legisign).
Consider the cell -- thought of by some as the
fundamental unit of all living biological organisms. In pa
Jerry Chandler wrote:
"But, my point is that if four different
groups are necessary to construct an optical isomer of carbon such that it
distinguishes between the logic of polarized light, then it is mathematically
impossible to achieve this logical distinction with any notion of
'threene
Patrick,
My responses are interspersed below.
- Original Message -
From: "Patrick Coppock" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Peirce Discussion Forum"
Cc: "Bill Bailey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, July 03, 2006 9:26 AM
Subject: [peirce-l] Re: Sins
Thanks Bill for your comments.
You wrote:
Patrick,
I'm don't know what in my post you're replying to. I don't keep my
posts, so I can't be sure, but I don't recall mentioning an
"expression continuum," "segments" or "meaning continuum." I may
have; I sometimes think I only think I know wha
m: "Patrick Coppock" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Peirce Discussion Forum"
Cc: "Bill Bailey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, July 02, 2006 10:46 AM
Subject: [peirce-l] Re: Sinsign, Legisign, Qualisign - help!
Hi Bill, you wrote:
I think it is not very usefu
Dear Patrick:A few quick notes from Salzburg as I found your comments of interest and perhaps I can clarify some issues.My goals are more concerned with a coherent philosophy of science, especially a coherent relation between chemical philosophy and biological philosophy and medical philosophy. Pe
Hi Bill, you wrote:
I think it is not very useful to speak of signs as existing in the
same process as existential objects, but if we must, perhaps we can
say, "Yes, signs exist, but much faster than objects do."
Well yes I guess so. The sign function may be construed (rather
simplistically
Asociación Latinoamericana de Semiótica_ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Thanks
Claudio
- Original Message -
From:
Jorge Lurac
To: Peirce Discussion Forum
Sent: Friday, June 30, 2006 10:22
PM
Subject: [peirce-l] Re: Sinsign,
Legisign, Qualisign - help! ...real-realit
Jerry, thanks for your comments,
Sorry for my rather slow reply, but family and
some university-political obligations have taken
quite a lot of time the last few days.
In any case, I can see I'll have my work cut out
to be brief in replying to your notes, since
brief though they may be, the
Original Message - From: "Jim Piat" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Peirce Discussion Forum" <peirce-l@lyris.ttu.edu> Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2006 4:49 PM Subject: [peirce-l] Re: Sinsign, Legisign, Qualisign - help! > >> It is found in "How to Make Our Id
Best, Ben
- Original Message -----
From: "Joseph Ransdell" To: "Peirce Discussion Forum" Sent: Friday, June 30,
2006 3:46 PM Subject: [peirce-l] Re: Sinsign, Legisign, Qualisign - help!
In response to me saying:.
>Maybe I should add that I find it difficult
o_ with "The Origin of Birds."
Best, Ben
- Original Message -----
From: "Joseph Ransdell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Peirce Discussion Forum"
Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2006 11:13 PM
Subject: [peirce-l] Re: Sinsign, Legisign, Qualisign - help!
Michael said:
."
Best, Ben
- Original Message -
From: "Joseph Ransdell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Peirce Discussion Forum"
Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2006 11:13 PM
Subject: [peirce-l] Re: Sinsign, Legisign, Qualisign - help!
Michael said:
[MD:] Haven't had the pleasure
believe that anyone has actually been able to read all of the way through
Calvino's practical joke of a book! So I wouldn't count on it as a solution
to anything. But it's a good read as far as you can stand it nonetheless!
Joe Ransdell
- Original Message -
From
L PROTECTED]>
To: "Peirce Discussion Forum" <peirce-l@lyris.ttu.edu>
Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2006 4:49 PM
Subject: [peirce-l] Re: Sinsign, Legisign, Qualisign - help!
> >> It is found in "How to Make Our Ideas
Clear":>>>> The opinion which is fated to be
ualize the cosmological stew that "preceded" the sporting
emergence of Firstness.
-Original Message-
From: Joseph Ransdell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2006 5:19 PM
To: Peirce Discussion Forum
Subject: [peirce-l] Re: Sinsign, Legisign, Qualisign - help!
So i
the floor with uncontrollable
laughter! (Peirce didn't say that, but he might have.)
Joe Ransdell
- Original Message -
From: "Michael J. DeLaurentis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Peirce Discussion Forum"
Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2006 1:42 PM
Subject: [peirce
It is found in "How to Make Our Ideas Clear":
The opinion which is fated to be ultimately agreed to by all who
investigate, is what we mean by the truth, and the object represented in
this opinion is the real. That is the way I would explain reality. CP
5.407
Joe Ransdell
Dear Folks,
T
ROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2006 1:40 PM
To: Peirce Discussion Forum
Subject: [peirce-l] Re: Sinsign, Legisign, Qualisign - help!
It is found in "How to Make Our Ideas Clear":
The opinion which is fated to be ultimately agreed to by all who
investigate, is what we mean by
- Original Message -
From: "Claudio Guerri" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Peirce Discussion Forum"
Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2006 9:25 AM
Subject: [peirce-l] Re: Sinsign, Legisign, Qualisign - help!
Patrick, List,
Patrick wrote the 28 June:
"I like to start out from
imperative of _loken_ "to look."
Best, Ben
- Original Message -
From: "Claudio Guerri" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Peirce Discussion Forum"
Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2006 10:25 AM
Subject: [peirce-l] Re: Sinsign, Legisign, Qualisign - help!
Patrick, List,
Pat
Patrick, List,
Patrick wrote the 28 June:
"I like to start out from Peirce's definition of the real as "that object
for which truth stands""
I could not find this definition in the CP... could you tell from where you
got it?
I found this one, closely related:
CP 1.339 [...] Finally, the inter
Patrick, Jean-Marc, Jerry, Jim, Bill, List
J.Ch = Jerry Chandler
BB = Bill Bailey
J-MO = Jean-Marc Orliaguet
AS = Arnold Shepperson
The following remarks caught my eye as I read through the exchanges on this thread:
J-MO: ... the phenomenological approach which consists in studying how forms can b
Frances Kelly wrote:
Frances to Jean-Marc...
Hi, see the quote below - it's from the collected papers 1.365.
especially:
"... besides genuine Secondness, there is a degenerate sort *which does
not exist as such*, but is only so conceived."
Peirce calls them 'internal', 'relations of rea
s in mind in discussions of the
interpretant.
Best, Ben
- Original Message -
From: "Bill Bailey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Peirce Discussion Forum"
Sent: Wednesday, June 28, 2006 12:03 PM
Subject: [peirce-l] Re: Sinsign, Legisign, Qualisign - help!
Pat
Frances to Jean-Marc...
This muse is somewhat off topic, but may be related to the subject.
You recently stated here that Peirce wrote some thirds and seconds are
degenerate, which means that they have no real existence. The
statement that degenerate categories have no real existence is
intriguing
Patrick: In addition to representing what I have always hoped is Peirce's
developmental teleology, your description of sign function seems to me to
get to the heart of pragmatic discourse analysis in which conventional sign
structures and meanings ("syntactics" and "semantics") serve principally
Patrick, Jean-Marc.
On Jun 28, 2006, at 7:27 AM, Jean-Marc Orliaguet wrote:
Patrick Coppock wrote:
At 0:11 -0400 25-06-2006, Jerry LR Chandler wrote:
I will be at the Whitehead Conference in Salzburg next week so I
do not anticipate much time for replies.
...
However, for us to believe tha
At 9:19 -0400 28-06-2006, Jim Piat wrote:
In any case, what I'm doing here is asking a question and would love
for someone to attempt to sort through how the terms real, existent
and true are related.
That's the big one Jim!
I like to start out from Peirce's definition of the real as "that
Hi Jim, and thanks for your comments.
You wrote:
At 8:47 -0400 28-06-2006, Jim Piat wrote:
Dear Patrick, Folks--
Whitehead, yes -- and also Wittgenstein's notion of family
resemblance. Signs, like thought are more or less continuous and
resist our attempts to pigeon hole them. OTOH contrasti
Patrick wrote:
However, for us to believe that Firsts, Seconds and Thirds actually
"exist", beyond their being mere transitory events in an ongoing semiosic
process, would be fallibilistic in Peirce's terms, or a "Fallacy of
Misplaced Concreteness" in Whitehead's terms.
Jean-Marc responded:
Dear Patrick, Folks--
Whitehead, yes -- and also Wittgenstein's
notion of family resemblance. Signs, like thought are more or less
continuous and resist our attempts to pigeon hole them. OTOH contrasting
mere intellectual associations with triadic thought Peirce says, "But the
highest kin
Thanks for your comments Arnold, and yes indeed, what Peirce and
Whitehead probably have most in common is their respective
competencies in mathematics, and the way in which they use these
competncies to consolidate and explicate their respective
philosophical projects.
It's their maths that
Thanks JM for your brief comments,
I still think we need some way of distinguishing between that which
is for us phenomenologically or experientally real and that which is
(enduringly) existent in the world.
Peirce and Whitehead both operate with notions that postulate some
kind of relationa
Arnold Shepperson wrote:
Jean-Marc, Patrick
Patrick has a point in that Peirce's categories are such that in
representation the higher-order presupposes the lower (is that the way
to use `presuppose, by the way?). Jean-Marc equally has a point in
noting that Peirce became a `Three-Category
Jean-Marc, Patrick
Patrick has a point in that Peirce's categories are such that in representation the higher-order presupposes the lower (is that the way to use `presuppose, by the way?). Jean-Marc equally has a point in noting that Peirce became a `Three-Category Realist' in his later thinking
Patrick Coppock wrote:
At 0:11 -0400 25-06-2006, Jerry LR Chandler wrote:
I will be at the Whitehead Conference in Salzburg next week so I do
not anticipate much time for replies.
...
However, for us to believe that Firsts, Seconds and Thirds actually
"exist", beyond their being mere transito
At 0:11 -0400 25-06-2006, Jerry LR Chandler wrote:
I will be at the Whitehead Conference in Salzburg next week so I do
not anticipate much time for replies.
Talking of Whitehead, whose process philosophy, or "philosophy of
organism" is surely an interesting and challenging read for any
Peirc
Jerry, Gary, list,
> A number of recent posts have addressed the topics of:
>>On Jun 19, 2006, at 1:05 AM, Peirce Discussion Forum digest wrote:
>> Re: Sinsign, Legisign, Qualisign
> I am seeking help in understanding the importance of these terms to
> individual scholars.
> The definitions are
Gary Richmond wrote:
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 th
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
Ben,
-Original Message-
From: Benjamin Udell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: vrijdag 16 juni 2006 16:25
To: Peirce Discussion Forum
Subject: [peirce-l] Re: Sinsign, Legisign, Qualisign
MessageAuke, list,
>[Auke] Ben I have the feeling that much of your uneasyness is a
>conse
Wilfred wrote,
"List,
"I did not know the Digital Peirce online site before. "
I should just send this to every new peirce-lister. Additions &
corrections welcome. I've checked these links, they're all live, though some of
the URLs seem to be the result of recent changes. - Ben Udell
Title: [peirce-l] Re: Sinsign, Legisign, Qualisign
List,
I did not know the Digital
Peirce online site before. But am now reading some article there which I regard
very good. And it is just the first article I am reading. Would advice people
here who did not see the site before to
List, Bernard, Robert, Joe, Ben, Gary, Claudio, Arnaud,
For a long time I do not post on this list. I wish I had more time, so
interesting and dear to me is this topic. It's nice to see how this topic
is a recurrent theme in the important discussions that take place here,
and how new visualization
Title: [peirce-l] Re: Sinsign, Legisign, Qualisign
Patrick,
I did look at them right away, and they seem cool. But, though I'm good
with PowerPoint and gifs & jpgs, I'm not really the kind of person to offer
evaluations of modelling applets for use by Peirce-interesses.
MessageAuke, list,
>[Auke] Ben I have the feeling that much of your uneasyness is a consequence of
>the way in which you use the terms. It seems as if you promote the semiotic
>aspects that can be discerned (are involved) in signs to full fledged signs. I
>try to make this clear between the lin
Title: [peirce-l] Re: Sinsign, Legisign,
Qualisign
Ben, I wonder, have you, Gary or any of the others looked at and
evaluated any of the potential of the modelling applets mentioned
below (this comes from the Digital Peirce online site)?
http://www.digitalpeirce.fee.unicamp.br/p-intfar.htm
Title: Message
Ben,
List,
Ben I
have the feeling that much of your uneasyness is a consequence of the way in
which you use the terms. It seems as if you promote the semiotic aspects that
can be discerned (are involved) in signs to full fledged signs. I try to make
this clear between the l
is it really false
that the qualisign, the appearance, "horse" evokes a horse in its interpretant's
mind? I think that the appearance of the word does evoke a horse in my mind at
least, because of the habitual connection of that appearance with an idea of a
horse. Furthermore t
(like red) can also not be a
legisign. But I might be wrong. Of course.
Wilfred
Van:
Benjamin Udell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Verzonden: dinsdag 13 juni 2006
9:51
Aan: Peirce
Discussion Forum
Onderwerp: [peirce-l]
Re: Sinsign, Legisign, Qualisign
. If the same rules hold for
Tomorrow then, hopefully.
Joe
- Original Message -
From: "Bernard Morand" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Peirce Discussion Forum"
Sent: Wednesday, June 14, 2006 5:39 AM
Subject: [peirce-l] Re: Sinsign, Legisign, Qualisign
Joe and list,
I agree with the i
Thanks very much for the quote Joe. The last sentence puzzles me. Will
have to think about it: seems like Peirce considered lately that he had
earlier put erroneously some considerations related to the (dynamic)
interpretant into his characterizations of the relation of the object
to the sign.
Bernard says::,
Joe and list,
I agree with the idea of being very cautious with the 10 trichotomies
classification. You are right I think in recalling that it was work in
progress for Peirce.
I would be very interested too in reading the material you are refering
to below if you can make it avail
Joe and list,
I agree with the idea of being very cautious with the 10 trichotomies
classification. You are right I think in recalling that it was work in
progress for Peirce.
I would be very interested too in reading the material you are refering
to below if you can make it available to the
to
go on and on. Peirce was not the kind to think that the patent office would
need to be closed in the foreseeable future.
Best, Ben Udell
- Original Message -
From: Drs.W.T.M. Berendsen
To: Peirce Discussion Forum
Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2006 5:55 PM
Subject: [peirce-l] Re: Sinsign
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
Frances to listers...
As posited by Peirce under speculative grammatics, it is clear enough
to me that the classes of immediate object signs are qualisigns and
sinsigns and legisigns, and that the classes of dynamic object signs
are icons and indexes and symbols, and that the various interpretant
Ben, list,
By now you've received my completed and corrected message which omits
the request for the not-simplified lattice version of my trikonic
diagram of the 10 classes (since I very much like your simplified form
which I included in the revised message) and adds analytical content.
For ri
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
ssion Forum
Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2006 11:51
AM
Subject: [peirce-l] Re: Sinsign,
Legisign, Qualisign
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 wrot
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
prano might state the point).
Joe Ransdell
- Original Message -
From: "Frances Kelly" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Peirce Discussion Forum"
Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2006 10:59 AM
Subject: [peirce-l] Re: Sinsign, Legisign, Qualisign
Frances to listers...
The br
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
Frances to listers...
The broad theme of this topic and its leading threads is a subject
that remains intriguingly foggy for me. At the core of my haze perhaps
is the forced application of categorics upon semiotics, yet with
synechastics lurking in the wings. In my attempt to wrestle with the
many
bear in mind and I
don't recall if that was sufficiently stressed at that time.
Joe
.
- Original Message -
From: "Gary Richmond" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Peirce Discussion Forum"
Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2006 10:35 AM
Subject: [peirce-l] Re: Sinsign
developed state and which cannot reasonably be
represented as being his view.
Joe Ransdell
- Original Message -
From:
Benjamin Udell
To: Peirce Discussion Forum
Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2006 2:50
AM
Subject: [peirce-l] Re: Sinsign,
Legisign, Qualisign
V
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
Ben and list,
Professional duties don't let me time enough to enter now in this very
interesting discussion. Just some words: I think that the list of
divisions from I to X has to be ordered differently and may be that
several orderings are conceivable. This is something about which Peirce
sc
Various corrections. Sorry about that.
Also, anybody replying, please remember to delete all unneeded graphics and
text. - Ben
---
Gary R., Robert, Bernard, Wilfred, Claudio, List,
I thought I'd try to the branching style chart of Peirce's
ten-adic division of sign paramet
Gary R., Robert, Bernard, Wilfred, Claudio, List,
I thought I'd try to the branching style chart of Peirce's
ten-adic division of sign parameters. (These parameters are not mutually
independent). I supposed that the same formal relations applied as with the main
three trichotomies of parame
Bernard, list,
It's finally occurred to me that what Bernard has been focusing on my
preference for an "all-ascending" order in the table of Peirce's classes of
signs. But it's not the ascending, it's the "all," that I prefer. In other
words, consistency. "All descending" is fine too. If th
Bernard, list,
>[Bernard] The view point from the first trichotomy emphasizes an order
on the trichotomies. That's true. Yet this order is not the whole of the subject
matter: it is only the order of the numerical sequence 1, 2, 3 but it does not
account for the fact that into three, 2 and
Benjamin Udell wrote :
I had already produced the second table (Fig. 3) when you sent
the graphic of Peirce's own table. It's really just Joe's table,
re-produced as an HTML table, and with the second column put into
"standard" order (a, ab, abc instead of a, ba, cba) consistentl
Gary, list,
Well, I can't remember any more just what conversation it might have been
that started that notion going in my mind till it turned into something
mythical. Any record is lost on my old ruined hard drive. I simply have to stop
relying on these vague recallings when I post to peir
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
Wilfred, list,
(Note: if responding to this html, please remember to delete any unneeded
graphics and text.)
As far as I can tell, when a quality functions as a sign, then it functions
only iconically, the idea being that that's all that it semiotically
_can_ do _as_ a quality. A quality
Bernard, Gary, list,
How come I never notice these errors until a minute after I send
them?
THIS is the triangular arrangement with regard to the "all-ascending"
ordering of the 10 classes of signs.
A
~ ~ E
B ~ ~ ~ J
~ ~ F ~ ~ ~ H
C ~ ~ ~ I
~ ~ G
D
ALL-ASCENDING (1-2-3) ORDER
Gary Richmond a écrit :
Thanks you Ben and Bernard!
Gary
Benjamin Udell wrote:
Thank you,
Bernard! -Ben
Fig 1 and Fig. 2 seem to be identical except that the second one has
colors which indicate explicitly that there are rows and columns.
But the third fig
Thanks you Ben and Bernard!
Gary
Benjamin Udell wrote:
Thank you,
Bernard! -Ben
Qualisign
Sinsign
Legisign
Icon
Index
Symbol
Thank you,
Bernard! -Ben
Qualisign
Sinsign
Legisign
Icon
Index
Symbol
Rheme
Dicisign
Argument
qualisigns
iconic
rhematic
/ sinsigns
\
iconic
rhematic
Sorry, hoping this one will work :
From
the own hand of the inventor ( MS 339, August 7th 1904) :
B Morand
---
Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber archive@mail-archive.com
From the own hand of the inventor ( MS 339, August 7th 1904) :
B Morand
---
Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber archive@mail-archive.com
If I may add one important author to the list, I'd suggest some of
Floyd Merrell's books, like:
Change through signs of body, mind, and language (which brings some
new approaches to the categories)
Learning living, living learning (especially chapter 16)
Best regards
Eufrasio Prates
On 6/6/06, Fr
Frances to Wilfred Berendsen...
These signs are of recurring interest to me also, and several past
messages dealing with them by experts are in the list archive. Any
replies to you will hence be followed with enthusiasm. My present
access to the writings of Peirce is limited, but other writers who
92 matches
Mail list logo
