Edwina, List:
ET: I’m not sure why you have defined the object as ‘dynamical’; and the
interpretant as ‘final’. Peirce didn’t do that in this section.
This is not at all controversial among Peirce scholars. He does not refer
to the *dynamical *object and *final *interpretant in 1903 because he
Jon, Edwina, List,
Please note the subject line. The 1903 Harvard and Lowell lectures were an
important starting point for the major developments in Peirce's final decade.
And note Tony's word 'evolving' for the developments during that decade. In
any decision about Peirce's directions and
> On Apr 5, 2024, at 5:35 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt wrote:
>
> Edwina, List:
>
> ET: I’m afraid I simply don’t understand your outline - and wonder why the
> ’phaneroscopic analysis' differs from the ‘classification of signs’.
>
> I will try one more time to explain, and then I will likely have
Edwina, List:
ET: I’m afraid I simply don’t understand your outline - and wonder why the
’phaneroscopic analysis' differs from the ‘classification of signs’.
I will try one more time to explain, and then I will likely have to leave
it at that. Peirce's well-known 1903 taxonomy for sign
A few more comments.
1] With regard to your post, John - I support the shift from a language based
analysis to an image based one - but - question whether the phaneron is “in
direct contact with the ding an sich’. My understanding is that such a
relationship never takes place.
2]with regard
Edwina, Jon, List,
The following observation is a good starting point for analyzing the
development iof Peirce's thought and writing from 1903 to 1908 and later:
ET: I note that JAS seems to refer to his examination of the hexadic semiosic
process as within the linguistic realm. If this
I will try to answer in pints:
> On Apr 4, 2024, at 8:18 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt wrote:
>
> Edwina, List:
>
> In light of our longstanding and all-too-often contentious disagreements
> about Peirce's speculative grammar, I generally prefer to refrain from direct
> engagement these days, but I
John, List:
I have likewise already read (and carefully studied) about a dozen articles
by Tony Jappy, as well as his 2017 book, *Peirce's Twenty-Eight Sign
Classes and the Philosophy of Representation*. Why assume otherwise?
I still disagree with him on destinate=final and explicit=immediate
Edwina, List:
In light of our longstanding and all-too-often contentious disagreements
about Peirce's speculative grammar, I generally prefer to refrain from
direct engagement these days, but I have decided to make an exception in
this case. Hopefully, I will not regret it.
ET: I am aware that
: Peirce-L
Cc: Ahti Pietarinen , Francesco Bellucci
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Evolution of Peirce's theoretical foundation from 1903
to the end
List:
While I am at it, I might as well elaborate on my third reason for believing
that the proper order of the interpretant trichotomies for sign clas
List
I am aware that JAS’s use of ‘determines’ is not synonymous with ‘causes’ or
‘precedes’ - but is ‘logically constrains’. However, something that ‘logically
constrains’ DOES, functionally operate as causal and precedent to other forces-
otherwise - how would it function as that
List:
While I am at it, I might as well elaborate on my third reason for
believing that the proper order of the interpretant trichotomies for sign
classification is final, then dynamical, then immediate--namely, the ten
sign classes that result from applying the rule of determination are much
List
I think it’s almost useless to discuss these issues, since I’m aware that JAS
has his set of beliefs about the Peircean framework - and I [ and others] -
have our own beliefs - which may or may not, align with his.
But just a few points:
1] JAS quote Peirce: “ No matter what his opinion
o his words, but to his *tone*'" (SS 91, 1909 Jan 21).
>
> There's more to say about these issues, and I'll send another note when I
> have the time.
>
> John
>
> PS: The initials JS are ambiguous. It's better to write JAS or JFS.
>
> --
> *Fro
List:
It is telling that this rebuttal does not address my first and most
important reason for equating "the Destinate Interpretant" to the final
interpretant and "the Explicit Interpretant" to the immediate interpretant
(SS84, EP 2:481, 1908 Dec 23), namely, because the terms themselves clearly
guous. It's better to write JAS or JFS.
From: "Edwina Taborsky"
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Evolution of Peirce's theoretical foundation from 1903
to the end
This is a discussion we’ve had with JAS before - and I agree with Dr. Jappy
[TJ]. .
I a
This is a discussion we’ve had with JAS before - and I agree with Dr. Jappy
[TJ]. .
I agree with his view of semiosis as ’thought in action’ . My own view of
Peircean semiosis is that it outlines an active, adaptive, evolving process of
mind-as-matter formation; ie, an agapastic process.
This
List,
I learn that Jon Schmid (henceforth JS) has proposed an ordering of the
three interpretants which differs from one that I suggest in a paper
published in *Semiotica *(which is indeed the published version of the text
mentioned by John Sowa in a private conversation). As JS states in his
John, List:
FYI, I removed Dr. Jappy from the cc: line because he has told me in the
past that he greatly values his privacy and thus prefers not to be included
in any List discussions.
JFS: This is an unpublished article by Tony Jappy.
The title is different, but the abstract exactly matches
19 matches
Mail list logo
