But it seems to me that Peirce is not just talking about "signs" as the
tools of "signalling" but, being things that "stand for" something else, as
the way in which mind represents (not only communicates) the world. I was
not previously aware of Peirce's triad of triads, but the icon/symbol/index
triad - the different representations and the nearness or distance between
them, are very much talking about how we understand things, not at all just
how we communicate ideas about things - though that essentially and
necessarily as well. It seems to be an approach to the reason/perception
problem in knowledge.
Andy
At 12:09 PM 16/12/2004 -0500, you wrote:
>... But I think I disagree with this: "The idea of a semiotic psychology
>is to
>look at how signs actually function in intrapersonal and interpersonal
>behavior. "
>
>Isn't the nature of semiosis, by involving signs that are always cultural,
>fundamentally and only interpersonal, never intrapersonal in the traditional
>sense, no matter how private is the private moment?
>bb
Hegel Summer School: 18th February 2005 -
http://home.mira.net/~andy/seminars/18022005.htm
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Jan 01 2005 - 01:00:04 PST