Re: [xmca] concepts

[Tony Whitson <twhitson@UDel.Edu>]

I should have sent my "2 bits" separately in 2 separate threads (it's late 
and now I'm trying to drink myself to sleep).

#1 was on "long trails"

#2 was on "concepts," which I'm pasting in here again, to put it in the 
proper thread:

2. When I don't have time to really participate -- follow up, etc. -- I 
resist the temptation to speak up (almost as an ethical matter: that I 
shouldn't speak if I'm
not able to engage). However, on this extremely rich, interesting, and 
important thread, let me just offer this:

However else we might want to specify what "concepts" are, they are, most 
profoundly, semiosic (in the Peircean sense) formations. My own take is 
that, as semiosis is
activity, "concepts" are formations in/of activity. For me, this is a 
matter of an actualist ( > action) ontology, as differentiated from a 
realist ( >
"rei"="things") ontology.

Again, I am violating my own rule against putting in my own "2 cents" when 
I'm not available to follow through. (I could detail demands on my time 
now; but you don't
need to hear from me about such excuses.)
__________________________________________
_____
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca