I agree completely, Stephen. Thank you, Martin
On Jan 12, 2019, at 9:54 AM, Stephen Curtiss Rose <stever...@gmail.com<mailto:stever...@gmail.com>> wrote: "asphyxiating on individualist logic" has the aura of a common meme which treats individualism along with ego as more or less verboten in enlightened circles. To me the problem lies precisely in what you hint. Ignoring the universal. But until we can admit the prime importance of mind and of the person we are committing the very error we anathematize. A triadic approach says that we must honor the individual and the material and the mental while we understand the foundational causalities you reference. amazon.com/author/stephenrose<http://amazon.com/author/stephenrose> On Sat, Jan 12, 2019 at 10:46 AM Martin Kettelhut <mkettel...@msn.com<mailto:mkettel...@msn.com>> wrote: Jon and list, I can’t hide my thrill reading your “musings.” Replanting our thinking and behavior in the deeper context of continuous semiosis—recognizing the undifferentiated in difference--allows for “growth” of the sign at a point in human development when none of our critiques, analyses or structures do. Imagine shifting the current conversation from the paradoxes of zero-sum economic policies (focused on discreet possessions) to the more fundamental reality of the continuous environment in which those possessions are claimed. Imagine philosophy--queen of the sciences--which is asphyxiating on individualist logic (by discounting generals, trying to name the smallest chunk of reality, deducing truth from language), instead recognizing the implicate order (Bohm) in any discreet object of attention. Imagine seeing yourself--your identity—no longer as a paradox of determining influences versus free-will autonomy, but instead as both cause and effect of your life. Imagine the experience art no longer as appreciating the distinctness of a work, but as learning how life dances with the infinite determinability of semiotic continuity. Thank you, Jon, for breathing life back into the day! Martin W. Kettelhut - Longmont CO, USA Professional Coach, Doctor of Philosophy, Kashmir Shaivist ListeningIsTheKey.com<http://listeningisthekey.com/> <PastedGraphic-1.tiff> On Jan 9, 2019, at 10:01 AM, Jon Alan Schmidt <jonalanschm...@gmail.com<mailto:jonalanschm...@gmail.com>> wrote: List: I have been musing recently on the well-known remark by Peirce that "just as we say that a body is in motion, and not that motion is in a body, we ought to say that we are in thought, and not that thoughts are in us" (CP 5.289n1, EP 1:42n1; 1868). He also asserted in the same series of articles that "all thought is in signs" (CP 5.253, EP 1:24; 1868), so by substitution we ought to say that our individual (Quasi-)minds are in semiosis, and not that signs are in our individual (Quasi-)minds. As Peirce recognized, despite not having the benefit of Einstein's insights, Zeno's famous paradoxes are dissolved by understanding continuous motion through space-time as a more fundamental reality than discrete positions in space and/or moments in time. We arbitrarily mark the latter to facilitate measurement and calculation for particular purposes, but space is not composed of points and time is not composed of instants. Likewise, I suggest that semiosis is continuous, and we arbitrarily isolate discrete signs--or rather, Instances of Signs--to facilitate analysis for particular purposes. We can say that a Dynamic Object determines a Token of a Type to determine a Dynamic Interpretant in an individual (Quasi-)mind, treating this as an actual event "occurring just when and where it does" (CP 4.537; 1906). Nevertheless, the Type is not composed of its Tokens. Moreover, every Instance contributes to the Sign's Informed Breadth by adding that Token's Dynamic Object; as Peirce put it, "Breadth refers to the Object, which occasions the use of the sign" (R 200:E87; 1908). Nevertheless, this collection could never amount to the Sign's Substantial Breadth, which (I have argued) corresponds to its General Object. In other words, the Sign (as a Type) and its General Object are both continuous, while each Instance (as a Token) and its Dynamic Object (even if it includes multiple items) are both discrete. In fact, it seems to me that a necessary condition for a Token to be an Instance of a Type is that the Token's Dynamic Object must likewise be an instantiation of the Type's General Object. When I pick something up and say out loud, "This is a vase," the word "vase" that I pronounce is an actual constituent of the real continuum of all potential Tokens of the corresponding Type, which could be in any spoken or written language or other Sign System; and I am asserting that what I now hold in my hands is an actual constituent of the real continuum of all potential vases. Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt<http://www.linkedin.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt> - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt<http://twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt> ----------------------------- 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<mailto:peirce-L@list.iupui.edu> . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu<mailto: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 . ----------------------------- 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<mailto:peirce-L@list.iupui.edu> . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu<mailto: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 .
----------------------------- 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 .
