At 08:24 PM 1/31/2015, Howard Pattee wrote:
My point is that we cannot equate the determinism of Nature with the conceptual determinism of how the symbolic laws come about. That would be confusing the map from the territory. As many physicists have pointed out, without respecting this epistemic cut, none of our models would make sense.
This reminded me that I have a question. Frederik says Peirce "is inimical to the hypostatic dualisms pervading the cognitive field: subject/object," etc. (NP p. 6). Later, he says Peirce "dispenses with the subject-object dichotomy" and he quotes Peirce: "I do not make any contrast between subject and object, far less about 'subjective and objective' . . ." (p.194).
What does this mean? I can not see any way of dispensing with this epistemic distinction, except perhaps as an enlightened mystic.
Howard
----------------------------- 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 .
