John,
On this paragraph I don't see how one could justify the claim that phonemes are
physical, or letters. Phonemes and letters are types that are represented by
tokens in the medium of sound or visual marks respectively. The representations
could be considered to be physical, but are
On 4/10/2018 12:33 PM, Edwina Taborsky wrote:
I... view 'the Sign' not as an intellectual construct but as
an actual morphological unit, as an existential spatiotemporal
unit of matter, formed by Mind, existent within constant relations
with other Signs/morphological units. So, for me, this
Dear list,
Here is an interesting alternate translation; both from Jessica Moss:
The desired and the wished for is either the good or the apparent good
(*phainomenon
agathon*). And this is why the pleasant is desired, for it is an apparent
good; for some believe it is, and to some it appears
Dear list,
Helmut said:
controversalities appear as obstacles in every discussion again and again.
I wonder what could we do about this.
And Edwina said:
our difficulties are based on our own knowledge bases and agendas.
To which Peirce had said:
*It appears, then, that* ~Commens
Helmut, list
I think it's very difficult, not at all due to Peirce, but to our
own developed knowledge bases and our own agendas, to find agreement.
For example, many view 'the Sign' as a conceptual re-presentation of
an object, with the human agent as an interpreter
Edwina, Mike, list,
I too don´t see a versus there. Maybe that is because I see sign, object, interpretant as examples for 1ns, 2ns, 3ns. But I guess that this is a subject both fundamental and controversial like some others (e.g whether sign is the same as representamen or not, whether the DO
