OK - but this is a psychological outline and not a semiosic outline. And, its psychological nature is specific to you and your psyche. ...It isn't a general outline for 'all thinking'.
Edwina ----- Original Message ----- From: Stephen C. Rose To: Edwina Taborsky ; Peirce List Sent: Sunday, August 03, 2014 4:09 PM Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] [biosemiotics:6231] Re: biosemiotics is the basis for The sort of thinking I am talking about is conscious and not in any way an effort to replicate explicit notions of CSP. When this form of thinking is engaged in by me it is as I describe it. The first stage is an effort to create a description of what might be called a sign, a preverbal feeling. So it differs from a first which is only that, The second is an index of values that confronts whatever the sign may be. The third is an aesthetic or action stage in which the goal is to achieve some relationship to the ideals of truth and beauty. This general description is accurate but hardly prescriptive. There are times for example when the time I have given myself to do this is able to encompass only the describing of a sign. @stephencrose On Sun, Aug 3, 2014 at 3:59 PM, Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> wrote: Stephen- I think John and you are talking about different things and since you don't seem to use the Peircean analytic frame - the result is confusing. Yes - we do have direct experience, as both Firstness and Secondness - but Firstness is without analytic awareness: a pure feeling...which we don't even yet know what it is a feeling OF. To move into defining that feeling as 'wow, it's hot'...requires a second step of differentiation of the Self from this other source. Secondness is that direct physical contact but - we do react to it - i.e., to withdraw from the heat. No, I don't think a sign always goes through these three stages that you outline. ...vagueness to indexical to an expression..Certainly some semiosic expreiences are just like that but that's not always the case for a sign. Edwina ----- Original Message ----- From: Stephen C. Rose To: John Collier Cc: Peirce List Sent: Sunday, August 03, 2014 2:30 PM Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] [biosemiotics:6231] Re: biosemiotics is the basis for Seems to me that we do have direct experience no matter how vague it may seem. Certainly something precedes words. Words do not emerge of their own accord. I associate a triad with three stages and see the sign as what exists at every stage but which moves from vagueness (penumbra) through some sort of index to some form of expression or action. I certainly made no assumptions of the sort you note. I find that reaction surprising. Sorry! @stephencrose On Sun, 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. Indeed, merely because we use words and theories, of necessity, does not mean that they do not correctly infer things that are real, including things to which we have given names. For example the word tolerance refers to something which I believe is real, along with other values, And by real I mean they are universal and universally applicable. Now that is clearly all theoretical, but it makes all the difference if what you are theorizing is something you take to be fundamental to reality. Yes, but this is rather beside the point. I am not arguing that pure firsts are not real; I am arguing that they are not what we experience directly. John ---------- Professor John Collier [email protected] Philosophy and Ethics, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Durban 4041 South Africa T: +27 (31) 260 3248 / 260 2292 F: +27 (31) 260 3031 Http://web.ncf.ca/collier ----------------------------- 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 . -------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------- 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 . ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ----------------------------- 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 .
----------------------------- 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 .
