Isn't the point of considering anything the end? And isn't the end a
practical actionable something (expression, act) that contains the initial
sign and the index. In which case the sign would already have been
predefined by the logical end, though requiring the cogitative process to
get there.
On 8/11/2017 5:09 PM, Helmut Raulien wrote:
A system, I think, is defined by the part of its structure, that does
not change. The system exists as long as this part of structure (set of
relations) exists. Which part of the structure is used to define the
system, can be arbitrary choice, but
On 8/12/2017 10:43 AM, Stephen C. Rose wrote:
Isn't the point of considering anything the end? And isn't the end
a practical actionable something (expression, act) that contains
the initial sign and the index.
Peirce said that the interpretant of any sign is always another sign.
He also said
Stephen, John, List,
that a token is often one of "an open-ended variety of types", I find interesting and very agreeable. I have problems with the term "final" or "end" anyway. I guess that the pragmatic maxim is only a proposal how to make our ideas clearer, in order to be able to talk more
John, List,
the plot type is a sign type, but is it a sign? Or are only the tokens signs, because only they are perceived? Like a book that is read. And is the book only a sign when it is being read, because only then it is interpreted, and when it is closed, it sort of sleeps and is not a sign?
Thanks. That makes sense. I think to popularize Peirce in the best sense is
to create a model that has three stages but which is clearly as you say,
not a rote affair. The best popular iteration of a general approach that
seems to me triadic is "Madam Secretary" whose theme is not merely thinking