Meant to send this to everybody,
I wanted to tease out a quote that Don left us before his trip in hopes that it may shed some light on the idea of artifact - because I am no sure about the whole concept of artifact - or even that firstness, secondness, and thirdness are recursive rather than embedded not as a result of some a priori existence but as a result of individual activity.
Here is the quote,
Finally, as what anything really is, is what it may finally come to be
known to be in the ideal state of complete information, so that reality
depends on the ultimate decision of the community; so thought is what it
is, only by virtue of its addressing a future thought which is in its
value as thought identical with it, though more developed.
I often feel blind when reading into Pierce and I also feel that he is making fun of me in his writing, which is why I tend to steer clear, but I think some interesting issues are being raised so I want to take each sentence and hope that it gets me back to the place where Tony and Mike are.
First clause,
Finally, as what anything really is, is what it may finally come to be
known to be in the ideal state of complete information, so that reality
depends on the ultimate decision of the community;
Pierce is being sarcastic here no? He doesn't believe in any ideal state, let alone an ideal state where there is complete information (I think it is important to recognize that Pierce seems to be using ideal in a different way than Mike does. For Pierce ideal is not simply conceptual but the ideal that we strive towards. If we keep moving in the right direction we will reach a state of complete information which is absurd and the reason possibly James and Pierce hated Hegel - dialectic is fighting words for these guys I think). The second part of the clause brings us back to reality with a THUD. There is no complete information so reality is determined by the community. This opens us up to the type of political powerplays Dewey is going to talk about later. Whoever controls reality in a community controls meaning.
Second clause
so thought is what it
is, only by virtue of its addressing a future thought which is in its
value as thought identical with it, though more developed
So thought never really takes on any greater value because thought does not increase in information towards the ideal of complete information like we pretend (so let's stop giving those stupid doctoral examinations!). Each thought has the same value because each thought is developed to deal with a specific and immediate problem. There are problems in the present, but once those problems are solved thought will only get its value from the problems in the future. There is no building up of value. Thoughts do not get better in problem solving, only individuals become more adept at problem solving. I am wondering then if the idea of cultural artifact is contrary to this. The cultural artifact is determined by the reality of the community. However if we imbue it with some greater power we are giving that power to those who have control over the artifacts. Very simplistic example (maybe too simplistic) if I the community says that a certain vase has magical/religious powers no matter what the situation, and I control the vase then I control the power..
So finally thought is forward looking and the recognition of artifacts is, in a way, backward looking.
In firstness, secondness, thirdness, I sort of see Pierce saying that firstness and secondness are possible ways we can as individuals understand the universe but these are only partial understandings, and in their own ways backward looking. They are both embedded within thirdness and as we come to understand the universe more we will come to see that.
Don't think I haven't thought about the idea that thirdness seems to me to have more value than firstness or secondness in this scheme. I'm sure Pierce has dealt with this, I just haven't (and probably never will) figure it out.
Michael
________________________________
From: Bill Barowy [mailto:xmcageek@comcast.net]
Sent: Sat 12/25/2004 7:24 PM
To: xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
Subject: peirce and artifacts; back to Uslucan
Mike wrote:
"rather, the incorporation of tools into the activity creates a
new structural relation in which the cultural (mediated) and natural
(unmediated) routes operate synergistically;"
I have taken this point made my Mike to be the basis for Vygotsky's method of
dual stimulation -- using extant "structural relations" to co-create new
ones, e.g. shown blocks called "bic", etc.
And then, I also take there to be this similarity with Uslucan's writing:
"semiosis relies upon the history of the interpretant, with whom
interpretation is a putting-into-relation-of-prior-signs. "
Or am i being mistaken?
-- -------- bb
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Jan 01 2005 - 01:00:04 PST