A little digression -- I thought you would enjoy:
Ana
Tony Whitson wrote:
> In an earlier post, I repeated Peirce's view that thought is
> sign-activity, and asked, if signs are merely tools for thought, then
> what do we take thought, itself, to be?
>
> Reflecting on that, it occurs to me that it might be helpful to
> suggest this as an analogy:
>
> To say that signs are tools for thought, is rather like saying that
> molecules are tools for heat.
>
> To think of thought AS sign activity, is it helpful, as a lame
> analogy, to think of heat AS Brownian motion?
>
> Tony Whitson
> UD School of Education
> NEWARK DE 19716
>
> twhitson@udel.edu
> _______________________________
>
> "those who fail to reread
> are obliged to read the same story everywhere"
> -- Roland Barthes, S/Z (1970)
> _______________________________________________
> xmca mailing list
> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>
>
> __________ NOD32 2517 (20070910) Information __________
>
> This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system.
> http://www.eset.com
>
>
>
-- // ------------------------------------------------------------------------ /Ana Marjanovic-Shane, Ph.D./ /151 W. Tulpehocken St./ /Philadelphia//, PA 19144/// /(h) 215-843-2909/ /ana@zmajcenter.org <mailto:ana@zmajcenter.org>/ /http://www.speakeasy.org/~anamshane <http://www.speakeasy.org/%7Eanamshane>/ _______________________________________________ xmca mailing list xmca@weber.ucsd.edu http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmcaReceived on Sun Sep 9 20:47 PDT 2007
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Oct 08 2007 - 06:02:26 PDT