Stephen- I think John and you are talking about different things and since you
don't seem to use the Peircean analytic frame - the result is confusing. Yes -
we do have direct experience, as both Firstness and Secondness - but Firstness
is without analytic awareness: a pure feeling...which we don't even yet know
what it is a feeling OF. To move into defining that feeling as 'wow, it's
hot'...requires a second step of differentiation of the Self from this other
source. Secondness is that direct physical contact but - we do react to it -
i.e., to withdraw from the heat.
No, I don't think a sign always goes through these three stages that you
outline. ...vagueness to indexical to an expression..Certainly some semiosic
expreiences are just like that but that's not always the case for a sign.
Edwina
----- Original Message -----
From: Stephen C. Rose
To: John Collier
Cc: Peirce List
Sent: Sunday, August 03, 2014 2:30 PM
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] [biosemiotics:6231] Re: biosemiotics is the basis for
Seems to me that we do have direct experience no matter how vague it may
seem. Certainly something precedes words. Words do not emerge of their own
accord. I associate a triad with three stages and see the sign as what exists
at every stage but which moves from vagueness (penumbra) through some sort of
index to some form of expression or action. I certainly made no assumptions of
the sort you note. I find that reaction surprising. Sorry!
@stephencrose
On Sun, Aug 3, 2014 at 2:09 PM, John Collier <colli...@ukzn.ac.za> wrote:
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 .
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------
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 .
-----------------------------
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 .
