http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/Unmediated-perception-sheldrake-tp7593553p7593565.html
Nick,
`Signs all the way down` ... hmm.
Such a theory strikes me as necessarily objective, in the sense that:
1) there is nothing that signs ultimately refer to, signs
are not produced through reflection about the world.
2) that the corresponding system of signs is to be taken
as the privileged frame of reality, there is no world.
To the extent that you agree with this characterization
of your own Piercean interpretation, what prevents the
ultimate collapsing of sign (and reality) under Baudrillard's
`sign as universal equivalent`?
Wrt Sheldrake, I remember being tempted by his theory
that the universe evolves through habit. I very much enjoy
thinking that physical law began through arbitrary and
frivolous fluctuations before settling on what happened
most. In an effort to see where he would take such a
theory, I found some youTube videos of him speaking.
My favorite and perhaps most disillusioning was a
talk he gave at Google, where with maybe six people
in the room, I had the privilege to observe what a
rhetor he was capable of being. Now, I almost
never think about him or his theory.
Jon
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
by Dr. Strangelove