Kaina Stoicheia -- Rambling Review -- Discussion

KM = Kirsti Määttänen

KM: I looked up one (only one) of your links to earlier discussions.
     Some comments:

KM: I, for my part, do not do ‘eternal returns’.  I take good care to
     learn form my experiences.  I can only try to explicate my views,
     which, of course, can never be fully understood by others. --
     I try to learn from the misunderstandings, as well.

KM: One source for systematic misunderstanding lies in that a lot of
     you talk only of signs.  As if that were the only Peirce was about.
     Trichotomies come with signs.  These belong together.

KM: What I'm interested in is primarily meaning & understanding.

KM: What, I guess, is not something most of the listers are interested in.

Kirsti & All,

Signs are about objects, in every sense of the word “pragmata”, and
Peirce was about the same pragmata that he arranged his signs about.

I believe it's true that fixating on signs in isolation from their objects
and interpretants, along with fixating on single triples in isolation from
the triadic sign relations in which they take their place as elements, are
the main obstacles that keep would-be understanders of Peirce's signs from
getting off the ground when they seek to apply Peirce's theory of signs to
significant practical objects.  It is my object to do something about that.

Regards,

Jon

-- 

academia: http://independent.academia.edu/JonAwbrey
my word press blog: http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/
inquiry list: http://stderr.org/pipermail/inquiry/
mwb: http://www.mywikibiz.com/Directory:Jon_Awbrey
oeiswiki: http://www.oeis.org/wiki/User:Jon_Awbrey
facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/JonnyCache