Re: [Arisbe] SUO: What the hell was CSP talking about?
I agree entirely with your response to Doug McDavid, Jon, but thought I
would just add that Peirce would have accomplished very little
philosophically if his semiotical conceptions depended on a subjective
interpreting mind independent of the sign relation itself that somehow
brings it into existence. His semiotic is of special interest precisely
because it aims at explicating the conception of mind rather than depending
on a conception of mind indepedently acquired and based.
I think, in any case, it is clear from his early ambitions that are
expressed frequently in Volume 1 of the new chronological edition that the
import of the phrase "all thought is in signs" is to locate thought in the
observable signs themselves -- such as, say, the signs on the screen right
now (if you are reading this from the screen) -- as a relational property
thereof, rather than thinking of signs as taking on sign-value because a
mind somehow infuses them with meaning from its own "inner" resources.
Joe Ransdell
ransdell@door.net