You were tripped up the polyemy of "object" don. I am being tripped up
by the huge canvas of issues that has balooned our of the discussion
of the article about Pierce which has led me into more reading I need
to do before returning.
mike
On Sun, 19 Dec 2004 15:32:48 -0500, Cunningham, Donald J.
<cunningh@indiana.edu> wrote:
> OK, thanks for the paper. Looks like some good holiday reading!
>
> I asked because your previous subject line said something about signs
> without objects. There are no signs without objects - a sign has three
> irreducible elements of sign, object and interpretant. Just as
> Brentano's theorem posits that all mental events have content (i.e.
> thoughts are about something), signs refer to something in some way or
> another......djc
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bill Barowy [mailto:xmcageek@comcast.net]
> Sent: Saturday, December 18, 2004 7:16 PM
> To: xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> Subject: Intentionality and Semiotics
>
> Don, I was taking intentionality in the way Yrjo expresses it in the
> attached
> paper.
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Jan 01 2005 - 01:00:04 PST