Bernard Morand summarized the meaningful content of this debate in one sentence plus one image: BM> In place of the old, often recurring debates on this subject I propose to muse over a painting from René Magritte entitled "Le sens des réalités" That image, which shows a large boulder suspended in the middle of the clouds, is an excellent illustration of the way JAS assembles "fireworks of quotations" (RM's phrase) to state a hypothesis (AKA guess) and defend as if it were gospel truth. JAS does some useful work in assembling a collection of quotations about some topic. I have found many of his assemblies interesting and thought provoking. JAS has every right to state his own opinions about how those quotations are related. But other people may have different opinions that are equally interesting and thought provoking. But all those opinions are just hypotheses (AKA abductions, AKA guesses). For them to be considered as more than a wild guess, much more work must be done. JAS> as I have pointed out before, in Peirce's entire vast corpus of writings he used "commens" only twice and "commind" only once; and all three occurrences are in two consecutive paragraphs of a single 1906 letter... he explicitly defines it as a "mind" that results from the fusing or welding of distinct minds... First point: There is a huge difference between a metaphor and a definition. The verbs 'fuse' and 'weld' state actions that are performed on solid objects of metal or glass that are heated to the point where they begin to melt. Then the objects are forced together and allowed to cool. As a result, they stick together as one object. Second: Minds are not solid objects, and the verbs 'fuse', 'weld', 'heat','force', 'cool', and 'stick' can't be applied, literally, to minds. Whatever meaning Peirce may have intended is at best a rather vague, but colorful metaphor. Third: Peirce was a logician, mathematician, scientist, and engineer. He knew how to state precise definitions, use them in complex reasoning, and solve theoretical as well as practical problems. Fourth: The fact that Peirce used that metaphor in just two paragraphs of a single letter indicates that he did not consider it to be an important part of his system of logic or semiotic. Therefore, the opinion JAS stated is a dubious hypothesis about a minor comment by Peirce. Therefore, in this tiresome thread, JAS is the guilty party who has extended it beyond any reasonable length. Unfortunately, this is just one of many such threads John
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ► 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 no subject, and with the sole line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm . ► PEIRCE-L is owned by The PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary Richmond; and co-managed by him and Ben Udell.
