Aw: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Seeing things

Fri, 23 Oct 2015 09:39:19 -0700

 
Edwina,
I think, the obvious can be a point, if there are anthropocentrism, radical constructivism, nominalism, whatever, that doubt the obvious. Doubting the obvious is ok, I think, because there are concepts, that seem obvious, but are wrong. In this case, though, I think that it is not so. My main point was to amplify the anthropocentric "being-called-condition" of a thing towards the universal "interaction-condition", in accord with your response.
Best,
Helmut

"Edwina Taborsky" <tabor...@primus.ca>
 
See my responses below.
 
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Friday, October 23, 2015 11:21 AM
Subject: Aw: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Seeing things
 
 
Dear Edwina, Gary F., List,
Maybe the problem is, that we cannot say, that before there were humans who were able to call something somehow, there were no things.
 
EDWINA: Obviously, there were things before humans! Not sure of your point.
 
 
 
 
So I propose to amplify the "being-called-" condition towards "application-" or "interaction-" condition. I think, that there are three conditions, that together make a thing: Material condition (cateory 3), form condition (category 2), application- or interaction condition (category 1). Application or interaction with a thing is a possibility, because the thing is a thing still, when no interaction is actually taking place- "quality, reference to a ground" ("On a new list of categories", Peirce), so category 1. Form is a "relation" with the environment (border..), "reference to a correlate", so category 2. Matter is structure that grants continuity, so category 3. However, I cannot find, that matter is "representation, reference to an interpretant". Or can one say so, by fetching a bit far? Anyway. Matter- and form-condition is my renaming of Aristotles causa materialis and causa formalis, which I interpret not as causes, but as conditions.
 
EDWINA: Again, I'm not sure of your point. After all, a leaf on a tree is a 'thing' and existed long before humans - and is ALWAYS in interaction with its surroundings, whether it be with the air (release of oxygen); or with the sun; or with the deer that is eating it.
 
 
Best,
Helmut

 "Edwina Taborsky" <tabor...@primus.ca>
 
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 -----
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]
Sent: 23-Oct-15 09:25
 

Sounds to me rather similar to postmodern relativism/nominalism.

 

Edwina

 

----- Original Message -----

 

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 have emerged from the phaneron.

 

A road is made by people walking on it; things are so because they are called so.

— Chuangtse 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 .
-----------------------------
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 .

Reply via email to