Relatives Of Second Intention • Comment 2

Re: C.S. Peirce • Relatives of Second Intention
Re: FB | Medieval Logic • Kollbjorn Oldtheyn

Dear Kollbjorn,

The way I understand Peirce’s parable, he is asking, “How do we arrive at a condition far enough removed from our immersion in a current experience to question it, to reflect on it, and thereby conceive the possibility of something other?”  Until we do that we do not have a concept of “not”.

cc: Cybernetics • Ontolog Forum • Peirce List • Structural Modeling • Systems Science
cc: FB | Relation Theory • FB | Medieval Logic • Laws of Form

This entry was posted in Abstraction, Amphecks, C.S. Peirce, Cognition, Experience, Inquiry, Logic, Logic of Relatives, Logical Graphs, Logical Reflexion, Mathematics, Peirce, Relation Theory, Second Intentions, Semiotics, Sign Relations, Truth Theory and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.