heron stone wrote:
> The interpreter of a sign is an organism; the interpretant is the habit
> of the organism to respond, because of the sign vehicle, to absent
> objects which are relevant to a present problematic situation as if they
> were present. In virtue of semiosis an organism takes account of
> relevant properties of absent objects, or unobserved properties of
> objects which are present, and in this lies the general instrumental
> significance of ideas. Given the sign vehicle as an object of response,
> the organism expects a situation of such and such a kind and, on the
> basis of this expectation, can partially prepare itself in advance for
> what may develop. The response to things through the intermediacy of
> signs is thus biologically a continuation of the same process in which
> the distance senses have taken precedence over the contact senses in the
> control of conduct in higher animal forms; such animals through sight,
> hearing, and smell are already responding to distant parts of the
> environment through certain properties of objects functioning as signs
> for other properties. This process of taking account of a constantly
> more remote environment is simply continued in the complex process of
> semiosis made possible by language, the object taken account of no
> longer needing to be perceptually present.
> - Charles Morris
>
What about when the perosn talking to you is lying about the object they
say they perceive but which is not present to them either?
Then we have false perception at a distance.
Which raises the question, how can we be sure our own perception is
true? Is what we see really there? Is there anything there we can't see?
How do you know?
--
Stephen
Lennox Head, Australia
|
