> On Nov 30, 2015, at 2:33 PM, Jeffrey Brian Downard <jeffrey.down...@nau.edu> > wrote: > > The idea that one sign may be dominant is nicely highlighted in Peirce's > discussion of focusing attention on one thing and letting others fade into > the background. This ability to focus one's attention is, on Peirce's > account, central to the explanation of how we can exert some degree of self > control as we interpret signs as thoughts. The index serves the function of > directing the attention on one or another object (CP 1.369, 2.256, 2.259, > 2.350, 2.428,, 3.434, 4.562, etc.).
Which has some echoes of Husserl’s bracketing. (I’m not saying Peirce is anything like a Husserlian phenomenologist because I don’t think he is) Heidegger’s notion of distance or how phenomena disappears is also interesting. Although of course this is a common phenomena we all encounter as objects disappear as we use them. My favorite example is using a mouse to control the pointer on the screen - at a certain point the mouse disappears as phenomena any we just perceive moving the cursor. Until the ball becomes dirty - the part of the example that sadly makes no sense to anyone anymore. So they can’t see how equipment breakdown makes us perceive the objects that had previously disappeared. I vaguely recall a discussion related to this back when we were doing a close reading of Fredrick’s book on natural signs last year.
----------------------------- PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
