Jerry,
John is quoting what Peirce stated in several contexts. So he is right.
In other contexts, CSP writes a lot on unconscius (subconscious etc)
mind. But he definitely considered his normative logic only applicable
to deliberate thought. - He also stated that a person is a bunch of
List,
For those who may not be familiar with the trichotomic terminology of
Peirce's last classification of signs or who wish to refresh their
memories, I've copied a portion of Albert Atkins 2010 article, "Peirce's
Theory of Signs" in the *Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy* as perhaps an
aid
Gary R., List:
I agree with your comments about Atkins's unfortunate take on the
trichotomy according to the Sign itself. It certainly does not pertain to
"the Sign-Vehicle," since this is a term that Peirce himself never used.
The closest that he came was when he wrote in an unidentified
Atila, List,
Please pardon my delay in responding to your generous note on Tejera's work
available digitally and in print. I've been inordinately busy these past
few weeks, so for now just a few inter-laced comments. You wrote:
AB: The 3 main journals I found his works on Peirce were
List:
As quoted and discussed below, Peirce stated in 1903 that a Percept "does
not stand for anything," thus implying that a Percept *is not* a Sign. In
a letter to William James dated October 1904, he added, "Percepts are signs
for psychology; but they are not so for phenomenology" (CP 8.300).
