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

[mike cole]

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
> 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> 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
>
>
>


-- 

It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural science with an object
that creates history. Ernst Boesch