transcendence and immanence

Rhonda McDonnell rhonda_mcdonnell at
Fri Mar 22 00:30:12 EST 2002

What happened with semiotics was the bastardization of Peirce's semeiotic, 
something Dr. Ketner can explain much more eloquently than I can. But, if I 
have it right, the problem with semiotics, if you come at it from a Peirce 
perspective, is that thirdness or triadic communication is dropped out of 
the formula. Of course for Peirce and Percy, thirdness is what it's all 
about, hence the conflict rather than congruence.

Rhonda McDonnell

>From: rflynn at GUILFORD.EDU
>Reply-To: "Percy-L: Literary and Philosophical Discussion" 
><percy-l at>
>To: "Percy-L: Literary and Philosophical Discussion" 
><percy-l at>
>Subject: [percy-l] Re: transcendence and immanence
>Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 12:22:45 -0500
>Thanks folks. This will help me out some. I just finished a first draft of
>the thesis and will wrap it up by late April. Here's another thing that I'd
>like some help on. Do Lacan's theory of language and the Peirce-Percy
>theory have much in common? I've read some things about Lacan's theory, but
>am too strapped for time, and probably too dumb, to go and read a bunch of
>Lacan. What I have read, though, seems to be similar to the semiotic theory
>in Lost in the Cosmos. Help...please.
>An archive of all list discussion is available at 
>Visit the Walker Percy Project at <>.

Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail.

More information about the Percy-L mailing list