These files are maintained strictly for historical reference, research, and recordkeeping purposes,
and the content has not been altered or updated since archiving.
Content on this site may not meet current digital accessibility standards.
If you require an alternative, accessible format of any information found on this site,
please contact Bruce Jones, bjones@ucsd.edu to request an accommodation.
These files are maintained strictly for historical reference, research, and recordkeeping purposes,
and the content has not been altered or updated since archiving.
Content on this site may not meet current digital accessibility standards.
If you require an alternative, accessible format of any information found on this site,
please contact Bruce Jones, bjones@ucsd.edu to request an accommodation.
Andy, you wrote: > For Peirce a sign is not a means of communication at all. The sign is part > of a triad along with interpretant and object, and there is no subject > there. For French semiology the sign is a message sent by the subject to > the object, and this is the source of the idealism Gadamer complains of. > Peirce's standpoint opens up natural processes and aesthetic processes for > objective analysis and gives an objective basis for communication as well. > > I though that this was one of the best summaries of the value of Peirce's triadic view of the sign that I've ever heard. Very nicely and succinctly put! -greg -- Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D. Sanford I. Berman Post-Doctoral Scholar Laboratory of Comparative Human Cognition Department of Communication University of California, San Diego http://ucsd.academia.edu/GregoryThompson __________________________________________ _____ xmca mailing list xmca@weber.ucsd.edu http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca