Peirce
From: I.Haket@ppsw.rug.nl
Date: Mon Jan 17 2005 - 05:50:08 PST
Hello everybody,
On 2004-12-20 I sent you this message but I didn’t get through. It ‘s a little
late
in the day, but …
My name is Ini Haket and I am from the Netherlands. I’m glad to have the
opportunity to participate in your discussions. I read the article about Peirce and
it left me with the following problem.
Did I find a mentalistic conception of meaning in Uslucan’s article? When I
started reading, I expected to find more about meaning and especially about
topics like embodied meaning, meaning as a relation with the world or joint
understanding. I found far less about meaning, than I expected in an article
about signs. Why isn’t for instance meaning in fig 1 en 2 in the middle instead
of two times sign in one figure? What I found gave me the impression that
meaning is mainly made inside the subjects head. It is true Uslucan writes that
the interpretant is “the act as an entity (101). This could mean that the
interpretant is something like a transaction in Dewey’s terms. But meaning is
not linked to the interpretant: it is “the images the sign creates in the mind of
the person (101) In other places I don’t find the act but just the subject (103:
“… the role of the subject – the interpretant – is evident: it is the determination
of the meaning of signs.” ; also 99 and 100). Did I get this al wrong or is either
Peirce or Uslucan’s interpretation of his work mentalistic?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29
: Tue Feb 01 2005 - 01:00:05 PST