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

[Martin John Packer]

No, Greg, because things can and do come over the horizon! What’s over the horizon does not appear now, but it can in the future.

The dark cloud is a sign of rain. There is rain, perhaps, over the horizon. When the rain arrives, it is a sign of a cold July. When a cold July has arrived, it is a sign of El Niño.  

It appears that rain is coming; then the rain is real. It appears that July will be cold; then that becomes a reality. Not necessarily, of course: the reality can be different than what appears to be real. But we are reading signs all the time. Imagining what the future will bring. And then it does! (Or doesn’t.)

Martin


> On Jul 1, 2016, at 7:07 PM, Greg Thompson <greg.a.thompson@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Martin,
> So I'm wondering: does the "over the horizon"-ness of the object and the
> appearance/reality quality of the situation lead us back to
> phenomena/noumena?
> I know you are committed non-dualist but I don't understand how to fit
> these moves together.
> Seems like "over the horizon" takes us back to Kant's idea of the
> un-knowability of the object.
> I'd love to hear more.
> -greg
> 
> 
> On Sat, Jul 2, 2016 at 2:50 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).
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D.
> Assistant Professor
> Department of Anthropology
> 880 Spencer W. Kimball Tower
> Brigham Young University
> Provo, UT 84602
> http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson