Jon, Lists, According to the 4-node network representation of the Peircean sign, there are two kinds of debates about the object -- (i) the debate about the nature of the object itself (i.e., as a node of the network), and (ii) the debate about the relation between the object and the sign (i.e., about the edge, assuming that there is an object referred to by the sign). The fomer kind of debate may be akin to the debate going on about the "right" names to be used to represent the science of signs as discussed in my previous email, while the latter debate mauy be more substantial one, which inevitably would include discussing the othee two relations as well due to the irreducibility of the sign triad.
With allt he best. Sung ___________________________________________________ Sungchul Ji, Ph.D. Associate Professor of Pharmacology and Toxicology Department of Pharmacology and Toxicology Ernest Mario School of Pharmacy Rutgers University Piscataway, N.J. 08855 732-445-4701 www.conformon.net > Objects, Objectives, Objectivity: > JA:http://web.archive.org/web/20140326203601/http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/12321 > VNA:http://web.archive.org/web/20140326210000/http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/12323 > GF:http://web.archive.org/web/20140327140212/http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/12341 > JA:http://web.archive.org/web/20140327140236/http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/12342 > BU:http://web.archive.org/web/20140327202831/http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/12345 > JA:http://web.archive.org/web/20140327203000/http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/12346 > JND:http://web.archive.org/web/20140327203110/http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/12347 > JA:http://web.archive.org/web/20140327203600/http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/12349 > GF:http://web.archive.org/web/20140328184402/http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/12357 > VNA:http://web.archive.org/web/20140328184603/http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/12358 > GF:http://web.archive.org/web/20140328185204/http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/12366 > VNA:http://web.archive.org/web/20140328185246/http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/12367 > HR:http://web.archive.org/web/20140328180007/http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/12370 > > Peircers, > > I've been trying to get back to this topic, but I'm running on weekend > (weakened) levels > concentration right now, so I'll have to leave it at just a few remarks of > a general nature. > > I'm not clear on what all the controversy is about. I have the feeling > that most of what I've said > at least would have been fairly unproblematic, even trite, a few years > back when it seems that more > people were conversant with "process thinking" or "systems thinking" than > appears to be the case of > late, whether they absorbed it by osmosis from their general scientific > background (operationalism. > relativity, quantum mechanics, particle-wave duality, complementarity, > etc.), from pragmatists like > James and Dewey even if they had barely a nominal acquaintance with > Peirce, process thinkers like > Whitehead, eclectic synthesizers like Bucky Fuller (''I Seem To Be A > Verb'') and Marshall McLuhan, > gestalt psychologists ranging from Köhler to Perls, or a host of other > sources. > > At any rate, I think it would make a good beginning toward understanding > the full sense of the word > "object" to bear in mind the sense of the word that it takes to make sense > of Peirce's 1861 motto: > > | "No longer wondered what I would do in life but defined my object." > | > | -- C.S. Peirce (1861), "My Life", ''Writings'' v.1 p.3 > > Looking to the complex of meanings orbiting about the Greek word "pragma", > there is a felt sense > of a concernful situation, almost the cliché of a "tense drama" ... > > Have to break here ... > > Jon > > > Jon Awbrey wrote: >> Peircers, >> >> Recent discussions of "purpose" in semiotics remind me once more of a >> recurring theme: >> >>> Jon Awbrey 9 Sep 2011 >>> http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.comp.inquiry/3713 >>> >>> Objects, Objectives, Objectivity >>> >>> I am constantly reminded of this favorite line from Peirce: >>> >>> "No longer wondered what I would do in life but defined my object." >>> >>> -- C.S. Peirce (1861), "My Life", (Chron. Ed. 1, p. 3) >>> >>> The question of Objects, Objectives, and Objectivity is a persistent >>> one. >>> >>> The Latin-rooted English "object" springs from deeper roots in the >>> Greek "pragma". >>> It was a personal revelation to me on first looking into Liddell and >>> Scott and >>> reading all the meanings and ramifications of that pragmatic semantic >>> complex: >>> >>> http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3Dpra%3Dgma >>> >>> It is especially the senses of the word "object" that refer to aims and >>> purposes, >>> in other words, intentional objects and objects of intention, that we >>> are likely >>> to miss if we don't remind ourselves of their pertinence to pragmatic >>> thinking. >>> >>> Regards, >>> >>> Jon > > --
----------------------------- PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to [email protected] . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
