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

[Xmca-l] Re: Happy New Year and Perezhivanie!



I am not sure what part of Larry's or mine text you refer to, Andy, or why what I have written raises that question. But if your question is whether I think that words (as signs) are immaterial, or that a cube (as per the empirical case in our article) is immaterial as sign, then of course not. If your question is whether I think that sign relations are immaterial because they are not things but relations, then again no, that's not what I think or try to say. I assume we agree, however, that a pointing finger *does* things in a very different way than things can be done with a stick.

Alfredo   
________________________________________
From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu <xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu> on behalf of Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net>
Sent: 10 January 2017 00:41
To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Happy New Year and Perezhivanie!

Is that right, Alfredo, what Larry says? That signs are not
material artefacts (as I had thought), at all? It seemed to
me that you were saying that as well.

Andy

------------------------------------------------------------
Andy Blunden
http://home.mira.net/~andy
http://www.brill.com/products/book/origins-collective-decision-making

On 10/01/2017 5:25 AM, lpscholar2@gmail.com wrote:
>
> So,  following your train of thought we should always
> qualify ‘sign’ as ‘sign relation’ that moves genetically
> or  ‘dynamically’.
>