[Xmca-l] Re: The Semiotic Stance.pdf

[Martin John Packer]

Right, Andy: the word ‘object’ is a sign whose object is itself over the horizon, projected there by writers and readers alike as they interpret the sign.

Martin




> On Jun 30, 2016, at 8:52 PM, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net> wrote:
> 
> :) It is impossible to argue with what you say, Martin, without using the word (i.e. sign) "object" in the belioef that the reader will understand what is being referenced!
> 
> Andy
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> Andy Blunden
> http://home.mira.net/~andy
> http://www.brill.com/products/book/origins-collective-decision-making 
> On 1/07/2016 11:14 AM, Martin John Packer wrote:
>> My take on this diagram, Greg, is that Tony wants to illustrate how in Peirce’s scheme the object is, so to speak, always 'over the horizon.’ I think we’re back here to appearance/reality: the sign is what appears, but it is taken as an appearance of an object that is not given directly.
>> 
>> Martin
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> On Jun 30, 2016, at 7:42 PM, Greg Thompson <greg.a.thompson@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Tony's figure 7.3 makes me doubly anxious
>>> about this since it seems to suggest that the object and the representamen
>>> exist in different realms. I'm fine with that kind of dualism in a
>>> dualistic account, but it seems not quite right to have such a dualism as
>>> part of an account whose goal is non-dualism).
>> 
>> 
>> 
>