Jerry, it's clear to me the passage quoted is coming from the realm of
interpreting. The speaker might plan to engage others' reflexes but I
think the speaker also on engaging their intellectual interpreting; it's
for us each to override or complement our reflexes with our
interpreting, adding lots of other information, and then choose what to
make of it. Is this what you meant?
I'm still working on "predestinate" per se.
I thought of pragmatism/pragmaticism as alow-key thing we do all the
time in living.
Michael
On 2020-05-18 22:39, Jerry Rhee wrote:
Dear Michael, list,
Here is an example of “system of sensing”:
_Hegseth, an outspoken supporter of President Donald Trump who ran for
a Minnesota Senate seat in 2012, has previously urged "healthy people"
to "HAVE SOME COURAGE" and attempt to contract the coronavirus IN
ORDER TO build "herd immunity." _
_ _
_"The governor can say the state is closed, but if WE THE PEOPLE say
the state is open, then ultimately there's not a lot you can do if
every business steps out," Hegseth said while surrounded by protesters
outside Atilis Gym on Monday. _
_ _
_"That's pretty much the definition of responsible civil
disobedience."_
So what do _you_ propose as the prescription from Pragmatism,
the “feedback from the final interpretant situation into the
emotional and motor reflexes”?
From where I stand, it all appears vague.
I mean, what in the world is PREDESTINATE opinion, as some have
raised?
Best,
Jerry R
On Mon, May 18, 2020 at 4:27 PM <[email protected]> wrote:
List,
Whilst there can be an infinite amount of interpreting by a
potentially
limitless community, final interpretant isn't this.
Alongside descriptions by for example Donna Williams, a writer on
neurology, the immediate interpretant corresponds to the pure
perception
part of colour, shape, space, sounds, scent etc, and the dynamical
one
is the emotional and motor reflexes ensuing either "automatically"
or by
habit (fright, delight, retraction from danger) - Donna calls these
two
combined the "system of sensing"; while the final interpretant
comprises
those concepts one is used to adding, or freshly figures out, namely
the
meaning or signification - Donna's "system of interpretation". When
one
is unwell or is in delayed development, these occur in sequence or
the
latter one(s) don't readily happen.
In addition, there is feedback from the final interpretant situation
into the emotional and motor reflexes, e.g one decides it is
horrible or
realises it is dangerous or recognises a thing one likes; this might
follow by a split second or, if a thing is new to one, longer.
The same set of processes occur when the concretes are imagined and
even
when they are fairly abstract. This is because imagination is the
laboratory or workshop atop our shoulders. Memory outputs into
imagination and so we can feel, analyse and discuss our memories.
The central nervous system (CNS) handles the symbolism in the
sensory
epistemology arising from physical reality, and there can be
infinite
layers of symbols of symbols.
Words allude, and when several of these intersect, we can have a
meaning. This is why reifying (which I see as taking "literally
literally") doesn't work.
Any comments welcome.
Michael Mitchell - linguist - UK
-----------------------------
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 .
