Facebook has an app that reminds me of things I posted on
the same day in years past, and this one came up for today:



A child hears it said that the stove is hot. But it is not, he says; and, indeed, that central body is not touching it, and only what that touches is hot or cold. But he touches it, and finds the testimony confirmed in a striking way. Thus, he becomes aware of ignorance, and it is necessary to suppose a self in which this ignorance can inhere. ???

In short, error appears, and it can be explained only by supposing a self which 
is fallible.

Ignorance and error are all that distinguish our private selves from the 
absolute ego of pure apperception.

??? Charles S. Peirce ??? ???Questions Concerning Certain Faculties Claimed For 


I don't know if this is the same ???stove incident??? as the one being
discussed earlier on the List, as I was away for the start of that,
but it strikes me that this story has a rather different moral than
simply reviving a Morrisean transmogrification of Peircean semiotics.
Namely, it has to do with the path to discovering a particular object,
to wit, the self.




inquiry into inquiry:
facebook page:
PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L 
to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to . To 
UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to with the 
line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at .

Reply via email to