[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [xmca] concepts
On 19 April 2011 06:45, Tony Whitson <email@example.com> wrote:
> 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.
I'm not familiar with Peirce though I think the semiotic aspect the desired
unity (essence) of a concept is a nice point. In my own day-to-day
reflections I would normally consider affect and feeling as part of the
conceptual which entail semiotic relations. If you pick up any technical
book, you'll find things called concepts which don't have any affect or
feeling associated with them.
> 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 mailing list