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