So, when you said, "Cognition requires a previous cognition", in the case of an icon the previous cognition (the premise) is, that you know that the icon is not the original. And this distinction-cognition requires the knowledge, that you are someone who is able to distinguish, so you must have a self-concept. Did I get it right? Now it seems like a mystery for me, how self-cognition emerges, or is transpersonally transferred eg. from the mother, or inherited. Or does the baby first learn by experience, that icons are not originals, and then conclude, that then he or she must have a self, so that would be an inversion of premise and conclusion?
----------------------------- 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 .
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 11. Juni 2014 um 13:04 Uhr
Von: "Gary Moore" <peirce-l@list.iupui.edu>
An: "peirce-l@list.iupui.edu peirce-l@list.iupui.edu" <peirce-l@list.iupui.edu>, "peirce-l@list.iupui.edu peirce-l@list.iupui.edu" <peirce-l@list.iupui.edu>
Betreff: [PEIRCE-L] REPLY TO HELMUT RAULIEN on "Peirce's Questions, i.e. "icon"
Von: "Gary Moore" <peirce-l@list.iupui.edu>
An: "peirce-l@list.iupui.edu peirce-l@list.iupui.edu" <peirce-l@list.iupui.edu>, "peirce-l@list.iupui.edu peirce-l@list.iupui.edu" <peirce-l@list.iupui.edu>
Betreff: [PEIRCE-L] REPLY TO HELMUT RAULIEN on "Peirce's Questions, i.e. "icon"
GCM: (Cf. EP 1: 226, 1885) Maybe Peirce has a tendency to be ‘over precise’. That is why I like to anchor my statements about him in his most open, naïve, first versions – and then go under the microscope. I am quoting here his first drafts and letters about the JSP Cognition Series, Winter-Spring 1868. The first quote in the “Commens Dictionary” at Arisbe for “Icon” is dated 1885 and indicates for “icon” a habitual, historical-usage-status, where “a dual relation between the sign and its object is degenerate and consists in a mere resemblance between them”, “a sign which stands for something merely because it resembles it, an icon”, “so completely substituted for their objects as hardly to be distinguished from them”, “in the middle part of our reasonings we forget that abstractness in great measure [where] the diagram is for us ‘the very thing’”, “when we lose the consciousness that it is not the thing, the distinction of the real and the copy disappears, and it is for the moment a pure dream, - not any particular existence, and yet not general.” “Icon” is a “degenerate” (habitual, semi-conscious) version of the “firstness” of sign”. But even in 1868 Peirce is obscure. Sense is just sense, the nudge of my physical letters you THEN interpret into YOUR words, the extremely literal ‘first step’ when Peirce’s “brute action” gets your attention. Pure “sense” does not communicate any information just as the randomly selected alphabet letter “I” does not. It does not talk to you. The “matter” of this page you read merely triggers your response where even the concept “matter” is a complex reflexivity. Sense per se is not “matter”, it is pure UNEDITED sense that we must ‘notify to oneself’ as “calling out our focused attention”. It is the distinction, difficult to deal with (but absolutely the most fundamental of all EVENTS WHATSOEVER), between the FACT that you perceive VERSUS the analytical understanding of what ‘perception’ is. The fundamental FACT is NOT “why” or “how” you perceive the “universe inclusive of your perception of it that justifies that, in fact, it is” (There-being, “Dasein”) but THAT you perceive it (being, “Sein”). All the rest of your cognition altogether from the word “Go!” is because of the fact THAT you exist - not at all ‘why’ or ‘how’ you exist which is “secondness”, derivative from the “firstness” of that THAT. THAT you have an object of your attention (where “attention” is always ‘yours’, the very THATNESS of perception) defines where Peirce says in “Part 1”, “’Error’ and ‘ignorance’, being discovered, require the supposition of a self” then becomes an answer to “The universe is perceived but from where does this perception originate? From me!” – not as a cause-and-effect explanation but merely the cure for the “ignorance” of the center of the focus which only THEN is identified as ‘you’. “You” are “secondary”, “perception” plain and simple is “primary”, “firstness”, the ‘undegenerate’ “sign” of the “secondness”, the “significate” which is ‘you’. And THEN have a preliminary “Interpretant” or ‘explanation’ making sense of what just happened by connecting them together. Or the negative aspect of this was when, as Ayn Rand was about to die, she said, “I do not die. The world dies.”
----------------------------- 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 .
