[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [xmca] concepts

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