On 12/17/2018 4:30 PM, [email protected] wrote:
Possibly what I’m saying here is not much different from what you meant,
Yes. We mostly agree on the issues with some variations in terminology.
When I said "The categories of 1ns, 2ns, 3ns are ways of classifying
experiences in the phaneron", I meant that interpretation would lead
to a graph (diagram) of monads, dyads, and triads that classify chunks
of experience. Expressing that classification in speech or writing
would be the process of representation:
A monad P says "This chunk of experience is a P."
A dyad R says "This chunk is related to that chunk by R."
A triad M says "The mediator M relates this chunk to that chunk."
I'm using the word 'chunk' to indicate that the processes
of observation and interpretation determine the boundaries.
But the word 'entity' presupposes some pre-existing "natural"
boundaries between different types of chunks.
It's like carving a turkey. Experts try to "carve it at the joints"
in "natural" entities. But experts in different cuisines might have
different ideas about where the "natural" boundaries lie. But
novices might produce chunks that don't respect any natural
boundaries.
John
-----------------------------
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 .
