Stephen R - The meaning of, let's say, 'what is a good way to behave in a store 
line-up' etc, i.e., societal behaviour, is based on, as you say, social 
consensus. 

But what objective reality 'is', can't be based on how we 'name' it, but as you 
point out - Peirce's focus was that this objective reality exists regardless of 
what anyone thinks of it (or names it)...and our task as rational scientific 
beings, is to get as close as we can within the semiosic process, to 'knowing' 
what it is - and this has nothing to do with what we 'name' it.

Edwina
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Stephen C. Rose 
  To: Gary Fuhrman 
  Cc: Peirce List 
  Sent: Friday, October 23, 2015 10:55 AM
  Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Seeing things


  "things are so because they are called so."



   That does sound a trifle nominalist. Would not Peirce say something like 
things are so because over time a community has concluded that the inferences 
of persons multiply to into of consensus. Perhaps that is what you mean as 
well. In which case I am guilty, like Rep. Jordan, oe extracting a sentence to 
represent a whole thought. 


  I think some things are so, the most important ontological things, because 
they are so, independent of what anyone calls them. I think Peirce agrees.


  Books http://buff.ly/15GfdqU Art: http://buff.ly/1wXAxbl 
  Gifts: http://buff.ly/1wXADj3



  On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 10:47 AM, <[email protected]> wrote:

    How my post sounds to you, or how you choose to label it, is not an issue 
for the Peirce list, Edwina. If there is an issue for the list, it’s probably 
the distinction between dynamic and immediate objects. You have said nothing 
about that issue, or about anything relevant to what my post as a whole 
actually says, nothing that calls for a response. I’m only posting this because 
you chose to copy to the list a casual response that I sent to you offlist.



    Gary f.



    } Abyss calls to abyss in the roar of Your channels (Psalms 42:8). [Zohar 
1:52a] {

    http://gnusystems.ca/wp/ }{ Turning Signs gateway



    From: Edwina Taborsky [mailto:[email protected]] 
    Sent: 23-Oct-15 09:55
    To: [email protected]; [email protected]
    Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Seeing things



    Never mind the ad hominem - and the  smiley face is irrelevant. Stick to 
the issue. Again, the issue is that your outline sounds to me to be pure 
postmodernist nominalism/relatavism. The opposite of Peirce's insistence on the 
objective reality of objects - regardless of what anyone thinks of that 
object....whereas you are saying that 'things are so because they are called 
so'!



    Edwina

      ----- Original Message ----- 

      From: [email protected] 

      To: 'Edwina Taborsky' 

      Sent: Friday, October 23, 2015 9:39 AM

      Subject: RE: [PEIRCE-L] Seeing things



      That sounds to me like Edwina.   J



      From: Edwina Taborsky [mailto:[email protected]] 
      Sent: 23-Oct-15 09:25

      Sounds to me rather similar to postmodern relativism/nominalism.



      Edwina



        ----- Original Message ----- 

        From: [email protected] 

        To: [email protected] 



        We see what we focus on: what we see distinguishes itself from the 
visual field: the dynamic object determines the sign to determine its 
interpretant. Cognition begins by making distinctions; recognition continues 
with emergence of relations from the phaneron, now that things have emerged 
from the phaneron.



        A road is made by people walking on it; things are so because they are 
called so. 

        — Chuangtse 2 (Watson 1968, 40)



        The chaotic background murmur and crackle of neurons firing, cells 
doing what they muddily must to stay alive, organizes itself into definite 
rhythmic patterns, and lo, forms emerge and begin to branch. Presence parts 
from itself and proliferates as the branches take names. But a metaphor 
reverses the process by unmaking a familiar distinction, revealing a richer and 
stranger relationship. By thus renewing our vision, metaphors ‘literally create 
new objects’ (Jaynes 1976, 50) – immediate objects. Naming is creation, 
metaphor recreation. “A road” is a metaphor: a road is made by people walking 
on it; things are so because they are called so.



        Gary f.



        } Thought is not an out-of-body experience. [Mark Turner] {

        http://gnusystems.ca/wp/ }{ Turning Signs gateway




------------------------------------------------------------------------





    -----------------------------
    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 .




Reply via email to