[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[Xmca-l] Re: The Semiotic Stance.pdf



Affirmative.

Except, as you know Mike, this projection that is interpretation isn’t a force, it’s an act (in the non-technical sense); an aspect of a project (Andy will be happy to hear).

> On Jul 1, 2016, at 12:58 PM, mike cole <mcole@ucsd.edu> wrote:
> 
> Ooops, the projectile *force *might be called imagination?
> 
> On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 10:57 AM, mike cole <mcole@ucsd.edu> wrote:
> 
>> The projectile for might be called imagination?
>> 
>> 
>> On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 10:50 AM, Martin John Packer <
>> mpacker@uniandes.edu.co> wrote:
>> 
>>> Right, Andy: the word ‘object’ is a sign whose object is itself over the
>>> horizon, projected there by writers and readers alike as they interpret the
>>> sign.
>>> 
>>> Martin
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> On Jun 30, 2016, at 8:52 PM, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> :) It is impossible to argue with what you say, Martin, without using
>>> the word (i.e. sign) "object" in the belioef that the reader will
>>> understand what is being referenced!
>>>> 
>>>> Andy
>>>> 
>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> Andy Blunden
>>>> http://home.mira.net/~andy
>>>> http://www.brill.com/products/book/origins-collective-decision-making
>>>> On 1/07/2016 11:14 AM, Martin John Packer wrote:
>>>>> My take on this diagram, Greg, is that Tony wants to illustrate how in
>>> Peirce’s scheme the object is, so to speak, always 'over the horizon.’ I
>>> think we’re back here to appearance/reality: the sign is what appears, but
>>> it is taken as an appearance of an object that is not given directly.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Martin
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Jun 30, 2016, at 7:42 PM, Greg Thompson <greg.a.thompson@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Tony's figure 7.3 makes me doubly anxious
>>>>>> about this since it seems to suggest that the object and the
>>> representamen
>>>>>> exist in different realms. I'm fine with that kind of dualism in a
>>>>>> dualistic account, but it seems not quite right to have such a
>>> dualism as
>>>>>> part of an account whose goal is non-dualism).
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> --
>> 
>> It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural science with an object
>> that creates history. Ernst Boesch
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> 
> It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural science with an object
> that creates history. Ernst Boesch