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

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



Yes, I agree that metaphor offers another kind(s) of horizon.

Martin

On Jul 1, 2016, at 2:56 PM, Lplarry <lpscholar2@gmail.com<mailto:lpscholar2@gmail.com>> wrote:

Martin
Horizons are spatial horizons are temporal and we travel within these horizons as meaning potential. James Ma says (if I read him as intended) that meaning potential s are (object potentials).
This leaves the (and more?)
Now to introduce metaphoricity that moves through spatial and temporal imaginal ways. How is metaphoricity related to literal ways of spatiality and temporality within horizon?

Sent from my Windows 10 phone

From: Martin John Packer<mailto:mpacker@uniandes.edu.co>
Sent: July 1, 2016 11:22 AM
To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity<mailto:xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>
Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The Semiotic Stance.pdf

...and a way to bridge between present (& past) and future. Horizons are spatial, temporal, and more.

> On Jul 1, 2016, at 1:14 PM, mike cole <mcole@ucsd.edu<mailto:mcole@ucsd.edu>> wrote:
>
> I am focusing the verb project*ing. *An action without he expenditure of
> energy? A way to bridge between here and over the horizon?
> mike
>
> On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 11:11 AM, Martin John Packer <mpacker@uniandes.edu.co<mailto:mpacker@uniandes.edu.co>
>> wrote:
>
>> 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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
>
> It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural science with an object
> that creates history. Ernst Boesch