Hi Auke, JAS, list,
Could you help me work this out?
AvB: If Peirce did have a thought A, and later had a thought not-A , we
may say that he indeed erred the first time with A, but as well that he did
err when he discarded A.
*‘man is a sign’ (1868)*
*‘the general answer to the question
Bernard, List:
BM: I was not trying to illustrate the project JAS is pursuing.
Thanks for clarifying this, I did not think that was your intent.
BM: Nevertheless the Magritte painting is a Sign, a complex one. But it
needs to be perceived in order to act as such, I agree strongly with Robert
Auke, List:
AvB: Here we have in my opinion a typical example of the risks one runs if
only the words of the master count. The main risk is not a. an incorrect
understanding of Peirce, but b. of reality. Which of the two would count
heavier for Peirce?
Reality, of course; but this misses my
Dear Bernard, list,
I’m surprised you do not have answers to your own questions, since this is,
after all, a Peirce list, and of course, a Peirce list is about ‘*what
Peirce actually wrote’* regards *‘Peirce’s way of thinking’*.
And Peirce said this:
‘This is man,’
I mean, *everybody*
Supplement: The relation between the DO and the sign is, that the sign denotes the DO, and the DO dertermines the sign. Apart from a true index, the DO determines the sign indirectly, by a bypass, via the shared memory of the commens. You are debating, whether this commens is a fusion
Robert, List,
yes, your post answers a lot of questions I had in the post I wrote that appeared after yours, but I had written before I had read yours. Thank you! I had felt, that representation is something quite different from event, two different ways of looking at a sign, but it is a
Cf: Sign Relations • Discussion 2
At:
http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2020/06/10/sign-relations-%e2%80%a2-discussion-2/
Re: Cybernetics ( https://groups.google.com/d/topic/cybcom/Xb7_CYkMLwA/overview
)
::: Bernard C.E. Scott (
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/cybcom/Xb7_CYkMLwA/3aTHnBIzAwAJ )
Ii think, again, that some of the debates are due to the multiple
meanings of terms. I'm not going to back up my lists with quotations
since most of us, I am assuming, already know them. [And - I don't
have the time at the moment].
1] I tried to show that the term of 'sign'
Bernard Morand summarized the meaningful content of this debate in one
sentence plus one image:
BM> In place of the old, often
recurring debates on this subject I propose to muse over a painting from
René Magritte entitled "Le sens des réalités"
That image,
which shows a large boulder
Bernard, List,
That was a picture off the web, but I was able to find our actual copy —
the Lockdown (shades of Das Schloss!) has given us a chance to unpack
a few boxes of books — and the front matter gives credit for the cover
to René Magritte, “Castle of the Pyrenees”, courtesy Harry
Jon Alen, Robert, Edwina, John, List,
RM: We need the commens here to "contain" all these conventions and therefore
it cannot depend on the only minds that communicate; it is out of minds. We
discover it when we are born and then internalize it throughout our lives.
JAS: Again, there may
Jon Alen, Robert, Edwina, John, List,
> RM: We need the commens here to "contain" all these conventions and
> therefore it cannot depend on the only minds that communicate; it is out of
> minds. We discover it when we are born and then internalize it throughout our
> lives.
>
JAS: Again,
Jon Alan, List
I sent a specific message to Helmut. I sincerely thought he was answering
his questions. He has not yet reacted that already you have set off your
usual firework of quotations against my arguments, distorting them
somewhat. I'm not denying you that right, but maybe we should let
13 matches
Mail list logo
