Maybe I am doing a phaneron and calling it a first. Qui sait? But this am I took with me to the treadmill where I do these musement things the feeling of foreboding. That it was real I have no doubt regardless of whether we call it real or psychological - the latter (I posit) a designation Nietzsche might have deemed acceptable, without discluding its reality. I then spend an entire five minutes seeking to properly name it. Subsequently I had time to expose it to what I deem indices - fixed things I call values. A second stage. In each case I had a creative dialog. Time ran out before I got to the third stage. I will not remember it all but I cannot discount this as irrelevant. I think there is a need to confront what we actually do, not as exemplar wannabees, but as folk who are willing to play, if I may use the term, with the sort of whimsy CP notes in NA.
*@stephencrose <https://twitter.com/stephencrose>* On Mon, Aug 4, 2014 at 12:03 PM, John Collier <[email protected]> wrote: > Edwina, > > I am aware that Peirce can be interpreted as thinking we can be aware of > firsts as unclassified "feels". This is what I think led C.I. Lewis (among > other considerations) to describe uninterpreted experiences as "ineffable". > I don't see the sense of this, but I do think we can abstract firsts as > real from our experience, but I don't think we ever experience them > directly. I previously suggested some experiences that get us closer to > them, but I think some version of representationalism is correct. In fact I > think that this is required if all thought is via signs. > > > > I agree that Stephen and I have been talking past each other. We had a > short exchange privately that I am content with. > > > > John > > > > > > > > *From:* Edwina Taborsky [mailto:[email protected]] > *Sent:* August 3, 2014 10:00 PM > *To:* Stephen C. Rose; John Collier > *Cc:* Peirce List > > *Subject:* Re: [PEIRCE-L] [biosemiotics:6231] Re: biosemiotics is the > basis for > > > > 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 <[email protected]> > > *To:* John Collier <[email protected]> > > *Cc:* Peirce List <[email protected]> > > *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 <https://twitter.com/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 .
