Tom, List,
Everything I know about Hegel's master/slave dialectic I learned
from an animated short I saw at an experimental film fest in the
early 70s -- but in my news-feed just this morning I see notice
of a paper by Kent Palmer referring to that Very Zeitly Geist,
so I'll be reading that with interest as soon as I get time.
Kent Palmer "Hegel's Groupoids"
https://www.academia.edu/35992276/Hegels_Groupoids
Meanwhile, back on the range (I actually see a pot-bellied stove here),
I tend to see Peirce's story in a cybernetic or systems-theoretic frame.
The aspect of error calls to mind the problem of maintaining one's course
through a disturbing environment by observing deviations from that course
and using information about the amplitudes and directions of those errors
to get back on track.
This is of course a very rich example
and I'll say more about as I get time.
Regards,
Jon
On 2/22/2018 11:28 AM, Thomas Gollier wrote:
Jon,
The self born in "error and ignorance" gives Peirce's psychological view of
the origin of *self-consciousness*, and tying this to his remarks regarding
the hot stove seems to offer some possibilities. What's interesting to me,
though, is the comparison of Peirce's view to Hegel's derivation of
*self-consciousness* via the master/slave dialectic in the *Phenomenology
of Spirit*. Hegel is more mythologically dramatic, but I don't think
they're that far apart.
Tom
On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 4:40 AM, Jon Awbrey <jawb...@att.net> wrote:
Peircers,
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:
Ouch!
https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2012/02/22/ouch%e2%9d%a2/
<QUOTE>
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 Man"
http://www.iupui.edu/~arisbe/menu/library/bycsp/question/qu-frame.htm
</QUOTE>
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.
Regards,
Jon
--
inquiry into inquiry: https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/
academia: https://independent.academia.edu/JonAwbrey
oeiswiki: https://www.oeis.org/wiki/User:Jon_Awbrey
isw: http://intersci.ss.uci.edu/wiki/index.php/JLA
facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/JonnyCache
-----------------------------
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 .
