List, Frank: On Dec 12, 2015, at 11:16 AM, Franklin Ransom wrote:
> That effect of the smoke is in some sense part of what it is to be smoke. > Going beyond the part of the real that we perceive, and grasping it as a > whole, requires the whole work of understanding. But while the percept is not > "smoke itself", i.e. is not the whole of the object, it is nevertheless as > much a part of smoke as it is a part of the perceiver. While I concur with these sentences, I would ask further of your views: What is the nature of the coupling between the smoke and the "whole" of the experience? If "whole work of understanding." implies a coupling of external events with internal processes, then what is the nature of the grammar the generates the coupling of the parts of the whole? Is smoke a unit? Is a precept a unit? Do you consider this part - whole coupling to be "mereological in character"? Just curious. Cheers Jerry
----------------------------- 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 .
