At 08:00 PM 2014-08-03, Stephen C. Rose wrote:
The notion of how signs get to their editing is clearly ultimately a matter of theory. But the theory can stipulate that there is the penumbra which I infer from direct experience.
I don't think you entitled to do this. Do you really think I would be so stupid as to ignore this possibility? I am arguing that what you experience is already interpreted, and hence not a pure first.
Indeed, merely because we use words and theories, of necessity, does not mean that they do not correctly infer things that are real, including things to which we have given names. For example the word tolerance refers to something which I believe is real, along with other values, And by real I mean they are universal and universally applicable. Now that is clearly all theoretical, but it makes all the difference if what you are theorizing is something you take to be fundamental to reality.
Yes, but this is rather beside the point. I am not arguing that pure firsts are not real; I am arguing that they are not what we experience directly.
John ---------- Professor John Collier colli...@ukzn.ac.za Philosophy and Ethics, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Durban 4041 South Africa T: +27 (31) 260 3248 / 260 2292 F: +27 (31) 260 3031 Http://web.ncf.ca/collier
----------------------------- PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
