Re: Peirce List • Robert Marty
- You evoke many concepts with their relations, the explanation of which would take a considerable amount of time, to the point that you are reduced to answering yourself. I want to question you on the point that interests me particularly, which concerns your entry into Peirce’s semiotics. I found it among all your links here:
You will tell me if this is the right reference. If it is so, then I think you have made a bad choice, and of course, I explain myself. To be clear and precise, I must reproduce the entirety of your “Definition” paragraph:
I’m just beginning to get out from under the deluge of tasks put off by the pandemic … I think I can finally return to your remarks of August 12 on my sketch of Peirce’s theory of signs for the general reader interested in semiotics.
Your message to the List had many detailed quotations, so I’m in the process of drafting an easier-on-the-eyes blog version. When I get done with that — it may be a day — I’ll post my reply on the thread dealing with Semiotics, Semiosis, Sign Relations, so as to keep focused on signs.
cc: Category Theory • Cybernetics (1) (2)
cc: Ontolog Forum • Structural Modeling • Systems Science
cc: FB | Semeiotics • Laws of Form • Peirce List (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
Pingback: Survey of Semiotics, Semiosis, Sign Relations • 1 | Inquiry Into Inquiry
Pingback: Survey of Semiotics, Semiosis, Sign Relations • 2 | Inquiry Into Inquiry
Pingback: Survey of Semiotics, Semiosis, Sign Relations • 3 | Inquiry Into Inquiry