hooray! *"In one sense things come-to-be out of that which has no ‘being’ without qualification: yet in another sense they come-to-be always out of what is’.*
*For coming-to-be necessarily implies the pre-existence of something which potentially ‘is’, but actually ‘is not’; and this something is spoken of both as ‘being’ and as ‘not-being’. * *These distinctions may be taken as established: but even then it is extraordinarily difficult to see how there can be ‘unqualified coming-to-be’ (whether we suppose it to occur out of what potentially ‘is’, or in some other way), and we must recall this problem for further examination.* *For the question might be raised whether substance (i.e. the ‘this’) comes-to-be at all. Is it not rather the ‘such’, the ‘so great’, or the ‘somewhere’, which comes-to-be?* *And the same question might be raised about ‘passing-away’ also. …* *Then will any predicate belonging to the remaining Categories attach actually to this presupposed substance? In other words, will that which is only potentially a ‘this’ (which only potentially is), while without the qualification ‘potentially’ it is not a ‘this’ (i.e. is not), possess, e.g. any determinate size or quality or position?"* ~ On Generation and Corruption Best, Jerry R On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 5:36 PM, Clark Goble <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Mar 28, 2017, at 4:20 PM, Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> wrote: > > Clark, list - I think that the point of a primordial symbol is that it > MUST be interpreted to exist even as a symbolic reality. > > > An other way to put my question is to ask what this “be interpreted” > means. We have to unpack it. > > The traditional way in philosophy this is taken is in the Cartesian or > Kantian sense where there is a mind that makes a judgment. I think that > Peirce ultimately rejected this. There isn’t *a mind*. Rather semiosis > itself is determinative of mind. So the flow from object through sign to > interpretant is what makes a mind. And it’s precisely that this movement > happens throughout the universe that the universe is mind-like. > > So to say an icon is only an icon when interpreted as such read literally > puts a mind like substance doing an interpretation. Instead we might say an > icon is constituent of a part of mind. > > There’s some very real ontological issues here. > > Again my usual caveat that one need not buy Peirce’s ontology or cosmology > to use his semiotics. They’re controversial for good reason. It works fine > if one prefers to simply think of interpretation in the more traditional > way. However Peirce means something much more radical in terms of the > ontology of objects as well as the ontology of the relation between signs > and objects. > > > > > ----------------------------- > 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 .
