> On Jun 24, 2016, at 1:42 PM, John Collier <colli...@ukzn.ac.za> wrote: > > OK, this seems better to me, especially in communication among people, but I > still resist the idea that the immediate object is generally an average in > any sense. My problem is trying to fit that idea into my understanding of > information flow (using Barwise and Seligman’s technical approach to make > sense of Dretske’s Knowledge and the Flow of Information). David Lewis’s work > on the conventionality of meanings in communication does seem to require > something like what you identify. <> I should add it’s really hard to quantify this notion into something more technically accurate. I don’t think this is just a problem with the immediate object but besets a lot of Peirce’s thought relative to common sensism. He makes use of the idea of “true in the main” quite regularly but honestly I can’t quite figure out what that actually means when I think about it more. I’m not sure brushing aside this issue by coenoscopic and idioscopic distinctions solves the problem. So I definitely tend to agree with you.
----------------------------- 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 .
