"things are so because they are called so." That does sound a trifle nominalist. Would not Peirce say something like things are so because over time a community has concluded that the inferences of persons multiply to into of consensus. Perhaps that is what you mean as well. In which case I am guilty, like Rep. Jordan, oe extracting a sentence to represent a whole thought.
I think some things are so, the most important ontological things, because they are so, independent of what anyone calls them. I think Peirce agrees. Books http://buff.ly/15GfdqU Art: http://buff.ly/1wXAxbl Gifts: http://buff.ly/1wXADj3 On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 10:47 AM, <g...@gnusystems.ca> wrote: > How my post sounds to you, or how you choose to label it, is not an issue > for the Peirce list, Edwina. If there is an issue for the list, it’s > probably the distinction between dynamic and immediate objects. You have > said nothing about that issue, or about anything relevant to what my post > as a whole actually says, nothing that calls for a response. I’m only > posting this because you chose to copy to the list a casual response that I > sent to you offlist. > > > > Gary f. > > > > } Abyss calls to abyss in the roar of Your channels (Psalms 42:8). [Zohar > 1:52a] { > > http://gnusystems.ca/wp/ }{ *Turning Signs* gateway > > > > *From:* Edwina Taborsky [mailto:tabor...@primus.ca] > *Sent:* 23-Oct-15 09:55 > *To:* g...@gnusystems.ca; peirce-l@list.iupui.edu > *Subject:* Re: [PEIRCE-L] Seeing things > > > > Never mind the ad hominem - and the smiley face is irrelevant. Stick to > the issue. Again, the issue is that your outline sounds to me to be pure > postmodernist nominalism/relatavism. The opposite of Peirce's insistence on > the objective reality of objects - regardless of what anyone thinks of that > object....whereas you are saying that 'things are so because they are > called so'! > > > > Edwina > > ----- Original Message ----- > > *From:* g...@gnusystems.ca > > *To:* 'Edwina Taborsky' <tabor...@primus.ca> > > *Sent:* Friday, October 23, 2015 9:39 AM > > *Subject:* RE: [PEIRCE-L] Seeing things > > > > That sounds to me like Edwina. J > > > > *From:* Edwina Taborsky [mailto:tabor...@primus.ca <tabor...@primus.ca>] > *Sent:* 23-Oct-15 09:25 > > Sounds to me rather similar to postmodern relativism/nominalism. > > > > Edwina > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > *From:* g...@gnusystems.ca > > *To:* peirce-l@list.iupui.edu > > > > We see what we focus on: what we see distinguishes itself from the visual > field: the dynamic object determines the sign to determine its > interpretant. Cognition begins by making distinctions; recognition > continues with emergence of relations from the phaneron, now that *things* > <http://gnusystems.ca/TS/cns.htm#thing> have emerged from the phaneron. > > > > *A road is made by people walking on it; things are so because they are > called so. * > > — Chuangtse <http://gnusystems.ca/meanlist.htm#tao> 2 (Watson 1968, 40) > > > > The chaotic background murmur and crackle of neurons firing, cells doing > what they muddily must to stay alive, organizes itself into definite > rhythmic patterns, and lo, forms emerge and begin to branch. Presence parts > from itself and proliferates as the branches take names. But a metaphor > reverses the process by unmaking a familiar distinction, revealing a richer > and stranger relationship. By thus renewing our vision, metaphors > ‘literally create new objects’ (Jaynes 1976, 50) – *immediate* objects. > Naming is creation, metaphor recreation. “A road” is a metaphor: a road is > made by people walking on it; things are so because they are called so. > > > > Gary f. > > > > } Thought is not an out-of-body experience. [Mark Turner] { > > http://gnusystems.ca/wp/ }{ *Turning Signs* gateway > > > ------------------------------ > > > > > > ----------------------------- > 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 .
