Re: MD A bit of reasoning

From: Scott Roberts (jse885@earthlink.net)
Date: Fri Sep 10 2004 - 19:49:06 BST

  • Next message: Scott Roberts: "Re: MD A bit of reasoning"

    David M,

    > Scott said:
    > > Yes, we need one, but not for the reasons you give. My reason is simply
    > > that Intellect that gets the biological out of the inorganic, etc,. is
    > > Intellect well beyond my imagining.
    >
    > DM:Agreed.

    Scott: Another reason to distinguish intellect from Intellect is that our
    intellect is "our" intellect, that is, we know it in S/O form. One might
    suppose that Intellect is not.

    >
    > > While human intellect is dominated by symbol usage, so is all other. The
    > > particular is a symbol for the universal. The next step in the argument,
    > > then, is to say that all reality is semiotic. (This is Peirce's view, by
    > > the way.)
    >
    > DM: I refer to artificial/cultural symbols like writing, pictures,
    language.
    > So I think we need this distinction as well. You can make a case
    > for everything is semiotic but then there are distinctions within that.

    Well, sure there are distinctions, as in inorganic, biological, social, and
    intellectual semiotics. But the important thing is recognize the semiotic
    commonality, in order to break the SOM-based nominalism that makes this
    hard to take in.

    - Scott

    MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
    Mail Archives:
    Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
    Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
    MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net

    To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
    http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Sep 10 2004 - 20:32:02 BST