[Inquiry] Re: Futures Of Logical Graphs -- Discussion

[Jon Awbrey]

o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o

FOLG.  Discussion Note 38

o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o

JA = Jon Awbrey
JR = Joe Ransdell

Re: FOLG-DIS 36.  http://stderr.org/pipermail/inquiry/2005-November/003211.html
In: FOLG-DIS.     http://stderr.org/pipermail/inquiry/2005-November/thread.html#3167

Joe, Peirce List,

On to the next point.

JR: In developing semiotic as a theoretical explication of semiosis,
    which is itself defined in terms of sign-action, Peirce may
    have been excluding the possibility that semiotic can be
    developed in the purely formal way you suppose it can.

I find no basis for such a claim, unless of course by "purely"
you mean something like "puritanically excluding not just for
the moment but for aye any trucking with contents of concrete,
empirical, or material nature".  But then, of course, it'd be
true simply by dint of sheer insipidity.

JR: Isn't that what is basically at issue in connection
    with the question about what a pure symbol is?

No.

Jon Awbrey

o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
inquiry e-lab: http://stderr.org/pipermail/inquiry/
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o