[Xmca-l] Re: The Semiotic Stance.pdf
Martin John Packer
mpacker@uniandes.edu.co
Fri Jul 1 11:20:19 PDT 2016
...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> 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
>> 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
More information about the xmca-l
mailing list