Dear Ben,
Just to let you know that I've been reading and enjoying your many recent
comments. I haven't commented because I can't keep up with your pace --
but hopefully I will catch up some in time. I especially enjoying your
persistent examination of what it means to interpret something. The way I
confuse myself on this issue is to repeatedly disregard the notion that all
is interpretation (ie we begin with the given of interpretation as the means
by which we experience the world) and instead fall into what I consider the
trap of begining with objects as existing apart from our semiotic experience
of them and then to somehow try to make sense of a objects that do not exist
as I have mistakenly posited them.
I must remind myself that its signs all the way down. An infintitude of
signs (which are interpretants) within which are objects as one pole of a
tri-polar infinitely nested or enfolded reality of signs -- unfolding
behind us and we stumble backwards into the future, eyes firmly fixed on the
past searching for clues as to where we might be tending. The present (as I
understand it) is the continuous unfolding of the potential (which is the
future) into the actual (which is the past). This continuous circular ever
expanding and informing process or re-presentation of the present I
understand to be semiosis -- however it's spelled. None of which do I
take to be a refutation of any that you've said -- just my way of paying my
respects to what you are saying as part of what seems to me a list wide
attempt to sort it all out. A common interest.
Best wishes,
Jim Piat
---
Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber archive@mail-archive.com
