Cathy, list
> Cathy: This post is on the matter of "how a sign operates", specifically > the dynamic object. Just to complicate the discussion a little more, there > is a previously unpublished piece by Joe Ransdell on this matter in the > upcoming special edition of the Transactions dedicated to him (which should > be out in time for the Congress). The piece is entitled "Kinds of > Determinants of Semiosis". (Ben perhaps you might be persuaded to post a > copy of it here?) Anyway in this piece Joe explores a role for not just > efficient and final but also **formal** cause in this area. The piece is > well worth a look, IMO. > > > Vinicius: Thanks, Cathy. Indeed, Peirce sometimes calls the "would be" or habit embodied by a symbol as the form of its dynamic object to me communicated to the interpretant. If we assume that this form might be embodied by icons and conveyed by indexes, then there is indeed a way of understanding the the dynamic object as the "formal" cause of the sign-action. V.
----------------------------- PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
