Actually, we are the engine of interpretation. Without us interpretation
does not exist. Because, interpretation is only possible through thoughts.
Peirce himself is telling something about conceptions, f.i. with the
following statement: consider what effects, which might conceivably have
Hello all,
As I enlisted here some week ago or so and also made some posting today, I
will now also give some short introduction about myself.
So, I am Dutch. 32 years old. Have followed some long education, mainly in
management. Specialism first in logistics, bachelor level. Then I entered
Drs.W.T.M. Berendsen writes:
Some short reply. To set things straight, I am not a Dr. My title is Drs,
it
is for completing my university studies. I might get the other one in
about
2 months, but do not have the right to use that one yet. I am sure signs
can
not operate, even not exist, without
Also, while it is clear that no sign actually functions as such in the
absence of interpretation, the question of whether an *interpreter* is
required may be the kind of metaphysical question that Peirce declines to
enter into in this essay (EP2, 314).
gary F.
well the above
Thomas,
I am very curious about what you come up with for sure! Of course.
But, another thing...I am wondering what you are doing for a living
actually? Being a cook, cooking for people in a restaurant?? And that is
(about) fulltime?
I myself am actually working in a backery right now for
Dear list,
Just now I was thinking about some passages of
Peirce. About some small sentences which for me appeared to be quite important
somehow. For me they are now, whatever the answers to my questions I have to
ask here now. The questions relate to the term diagrammatic of C.S.
Dear list,
Some request from me again...fact is that I am getting some great insights
at the moment, but need to have some better understanding from the term
diagrammatic as stated by CS Peirce.
What I want to truly understand is what he meant by this term. For that I
need to know where to find
Dear Cassiano, list,
I regard the below message as very interesting. Cassiano,
your English is definitely not poor. And for me it adds for sure to the
understanding of the very interesting notion of Entelechy. Which I also regard
a very interesting subject. But, till now I only know the
Dear list,
Currently I am very interested in the notions of
sinsign, legisign and qualisign. I know there have been discussions about this
before, with phrases out of texts from CS Peirce defining these terms. What I however
would like to know, is in what texts (preferably from the
So why would the word red be a
symbol??? To me it is also not. I would regard the word red more
as being a qualisign, which then would also fit the last sentence below. To me
the word red can not be a sinsign since it is not an actual
existing thing or event. And to me a quality (like red)
Well...just make sure not pushing any button but just choosing some number
first with the drop down menu. By pointing with your mouse on the arrow at
the right of the number (specify the number of trichotomies). Then choose
ok.
Worked for me :-)
Wilfred
-Oorspronkelijk bericht-
Van:
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
So, actually, the photocopies we have now are
actually photocopies of photocopies? And, are the originals at Harvard or so?
I am just wondering whether anyone situated near
enough to the source for the most original papers of Peirce still available
somewhere ( I guess the originals will
all of these and other things as well, but it requires money even to
get a start on doing all of this.
As I said, let us know if you know where to get it.
Joe Ransdell
- Original Message -
From: Drs.W.T.M. Berendsen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Peirce Discussion Forum peirce-l
a start on doing all of this.
As I said, let us know if you know where to get it.
Joe Ransdell
- Original Message -
From: Drs.W.T.M. Berendsen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Peirce Discussion Forum peirce-l@lyris.ttu.edu
Sent: Saturday, June 17, 2006 1:14 PM
Subject: [peirce-l] Re: 1st image
Benjamin,
In the discourse below, I think the cause of your problems in reasoning are
at least partly caused by misinterpretation of the qualisigns and further
aspects of the sign you are talking about at that moment. Well actually that
seems to be a logical conclusion, but I just want to
I am now on the net
looking for sources for notion of vagueness connected with CS Peirce. By doing
so, I also found some books on Amazon by Floyd Merrel. My question is whether
this guy is scientist or more like independent scholar. And I am actually
wondering whether he is on this list??
I regard this kind of
discussions very interesting and practical. It are the kind of discussions that
motivated me to get into science and reading a lot of intellectual texts. While
I was, and even am, one of the most sceptical persons about both science and scientist.
Think that mainly
Dear list,
I am currently reading the text peirces
logic of vagueness of Phillys Chiasson. This text I regard as excellent,
also because the logic of vagueness of CS Peirce intrigues me a lot. Would like
to know where I can find this logic of vagueness in Peirces own texts.
What I am
Title: [peirce-l] Re: Sinsign, Legisign, Qualisign - help!
Dear everybody,.
Does someone here on the list happen to know this
George Soros? I already knew his name and interests, and would like to get in
touch with this guy. Any contacts might help.
Kind regards,
Wilfred
Thank you a lot! Reading this great text just now.
I got some general question again. Which has to do with some Aristotle
notion. I am just wondering whether CS Peirce also used this notion or wrote
some texts that are strongly connected with this notion. I am talking here
about the notion of
21 matches
Mail list logo
