Changing subject line as per John’s request - I have questions on Frederik's chapter but I had to wait until I had a copy of the introduction first. I love what I’ve read thus. Wish I could justify buying the whole book as Frederik’s work seems very much tied to my own interests in Peirce’s semiotics and Husserl/Heideggarian phenomenology. Particularly the place of indices and icons. There’s a lot to digest in the introduction and I’ve been particularly swamped at work this week.
> On Sep 5, 2014, at 6:26 AM, Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca> wrote: > > And since semiosis includes Mind/reasoning - that means that Mind operates in > all matter...and in all three categorical modes. And this is certainly not > neoplatonism. Kelly Parker’s argument (and I recognize not all buy it) is The Ascent of Soul to Nous: Charles S. Peirce as Neoplatonist. Looks like it just got put backup online ungated. http://agora.phi.gvsu.edu/kap/Neoplatonism/csp-plot.html <http://agora.phi.gvsu.edu/kap/Neoplatonism/csp-plot.html> It’s been a number of years since I last studied it carefully. So my memory is a tad fuzzy in a few places. I do recall there being one or two key places where I think his argument outstrips his evidence. But it’s an extremely worthwhile paper to read. It definitely changed how I think about Peirce. These aren’t the only neoPlatonic themes in Peirce. Reading Peirce Reading does a nice job on some as well. And surprisingly that appears to be online temporarily as well. (Get it while you can - it’s a fantastic little book) http://web.eecs.utk.edu/~tmoore/docs/smyth/RPR-24Aug96.pdf > 2) Then, there are some who define the actions that take place among atoms > and molecules as purely reactive, actions of Secondness; i.e., that no > 'reasoning' process takes place. They may, as does Clark Goble, admit that > mediation (Thirdness) plays a role but it is a non-cognitive mode. > > John Deely simply rejects Mind within the physical realm and considers their > interactions, if I understand him, pure acts of Secondness - dyadic > interactions with no mediation and of course, no Mind. I suspect we’re still on semantics here and what we mean by cognition. But I know this is an endlessly circling debate so I’ll not push it more. Does John simply attribute secondness to the physical realm? That’s not how I read him, but perhaps I was in error. It seems to me that when we consider the interaction of two particles we can conceive of them in terms of both secondness and thirdness. A lot depends upon what level we are considering I think - that is what abstractions, simplifications and modeling we are doing for our particular discussion at that time. Perhaps I’m wrong but I assume John would, like me, see all three categories always in play. That is I see our discourse and its form very much tied to the topics we’re discussing. That is the aspects of reality we are interested in at that moment.
----------------------------- 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 .
