Dear Ben,
I want to respond to your post but could not find your blog site scroll bar
in order to read the collateral experience quotes. I want to review them
before commenting. Have you posted them elsewhere -- seems I recall you
may have.
I think how we are viewing the distinction between a sign and an object may
be the cause of some of our disagreement. And frankly, for my part, I'm not
all that clear how Peirce veiws this distinction. Nor am I all that clear in
my own mind how Peirce views one's experience and or perception of an object
in comparison to one's experience of a sign.
My hunch is that you may suppose we experience objects unmediated by the
process of representation and thus must check our signs (or representations
of objects) againts these unmediated collateral experiences of objects. But
my hunch is that this is not Peirce's view of the matter. And even if I am
mistaken about this, Peirce nonetheless did not seem to think a fourht
category was needed to explain the distinction between the experience of an
object and the experience of a sign -- though of course he obviously does
speak of collateral experience (but not, I think, as a category apart from
firstness, secondness or thirdness).
But first I wold like to look more closely at the quotes you've gathered and
also give your recent comments (which seem to bring the dsipute into better
focus -- at least for me) more study.
Thanks,
Jim Piat
---
Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber archive@mail-archive.com
