http://www.cspeirce.com/menu/library/aboutcsp/auspitz/escape.htm
Thus, whereas James' Principles of Psychology asserted the completely
personal character of consciousness, Peirce stressed its communicability. In
an evocative portrayal of consciousness,James had written:
The only states of consciousness that we naturally deal with are found in
personal consciousness, minds, selves, concrete particular I's and you's.
Each of these minds keeps its own thoughts to itself; there is no giving or
bartering between them . . . . Absolute insulation, irreducible pluralism,
is the law . . . every thought being owned . . . . The breaches among such
thoughts are the most absolute breaches in nature.
To which Peirce responded: "Is not the direct contrary nearer the
observed facts?" That is, is not consciousness better defined by what it
shares than what it negates in its relation with others? Is not thought
itself, even the most private, really a dialogue involving signs that have
meaning only by virtue of their effects in a world of outward relations? And
if this is so, is not our capacity to enter into more general relations
through our use of signs the very definition of human personality? On
Peirce's view, a being speaking a purely private language would have a self
utterly devoid of humanity.
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org/md/archives.html
