> On Aug 3, 2014, at 2:09 PM, John Collier <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> At 08:00 PM 2014-08-03, Stephen C. Rose wrote:
>> The notion of how signs get to their editing is clearly ultimately a matter
>> of theory. But the theory can stipulate that there is the penumbra which I
>> infer from direct experience.
>
> I don't think you entitled to do this. Do you really think I would be so
> stupid as to ignore this possibility? I am arguing that what you experience
> is already interpreted, and hence not a pure first.
John, was your consideration of the possibilities along the same lines as mine,
described below?
When I read Dewey's critique of the reflex arc in psychology and his
explanation that it would be better thought of as a circuit, (described below),
I thought of an electrical circuit where no electrons move until the circuit is
complete. So likewise, no part of the reflex arc has independence from the
other parts.
Then I considered that maybe it's more like the coupled wave system of an
acoustic guitar. In a guitar, the first half-cycle of the string first
vibration is independent of the reaction of the soundboard, and the first
half-cycle of the soundboard is independent of the reaction of the air in the
inside chamber. After the first half-cycle of the string the reaction of the
soundboard affects the string's vibration. (The affect of the air chamber on
the string is visually apparent when comparing the string's vibration during a
wolf-tone, whose cause is from a standing air pressure wave in the guitar body,
to the vibration during a good tone.)
I tend to think our thinking is more like an electrical circuit, and that
Peirce agreed but sometimes threw sops to Cerberus when describing firsts and
seconds.
* * * * * * * * * * * *
Here's a description of Dewey's reflex circuit, which I copied from a post of
mine from last year:
Which reminds me of Dewey's criticism of the reflex arc, in The Reflex Arc
Concept in Psychology (1896), where he described the cyclical view of
communication among sender and receiver -- as "a circuit, a continual
reconstitution," rather than information jerked through one-way-valves, from
sensation to idea to action. For those who haven't read it, here's a very short
description of Dewey's idea:
The reflex arc is "sensation-followed-by-idea-followed-by-movement." Dewey
saw the understanding of these parts as too isolated. Better would be this: The
act, e.g. of looking, and sensation are coordinated; Looking/sensation and idea
are coordinated; Looking/sensation/idea and movement are coordinated. The
knowledge comes from the coordination of all the parts, not the output after a
one-way flow through the parts.
http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Dewey/reflex.htm
Matt
-----------------------------
PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L
to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to [email protected] . To
UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] with the
line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
