Aw: [PEIRCE-L] Seeing Things : What Makes An Object?

[Helmut Raulien]

 

List,

I consider as follows the difference between "object" in common understanding, and the Peircean object: In common sense, an objects main trait is its permanence, and also its spatial limitation. So it is an entity, something that is, i.e. exists (limited in space, but not in time). But in the Peircean sense, an object is part of an irreducible triad: Representamen, object, interpretant. So it is spatiotemporally limited to this one sign, and therefore not permanent. On the other hand, Peirce writes, that an interpretant can become a representamen again, which denotes the same object. This is not consistent, is it? I might only solve this problem by saying: An object is a temporary limited clipping/excerpt of an entity, as it appears in one sign. In the following sign, the object is a different one: Another clipping, but from the same entity. In a similar manner, a representamen is a spatial clipping from an event (limited in time, but not in space), and an interpretant a spatiotemporal clipping from a result, which result is an event again.

A second problem is, that an event can, and usually does, affect more than one entity. So maybe an object is the sum of all clippings from entities, that apeear in a Sign, i.e. that are interacting with an event at the same time and place. The place in the semiosis with a dynamic object is a place in real space, and the place of a semiosis/Sign with an immediate object is a place in an imagined space. These proposals at least might make the whole affair understandable for me.

Best,

Helmut

 "Jon Awbrey" <jawb...@att.net> wrote:
 

Peircers,

What makes an object is a perennial question.

I can remember my physics professors bringing
it up in a really big way when I was still just
a freshman in college. They always cautioned us
then about extrapolating our everyday intuitions
about everyday objects beyond their native realms.

Anyone who has been graced or grazed by a modicum
of process thinking, say Whitehead or Bucky Fuller,
is aware of the trade-off between process thinking
and product thinking that rules our descriptions of
every domain of phenomena, but in a retrograde time
like the one we are currently experiencing it takes
a mighty effort to recollect the way that hidebound
objects are precipitated from more primal processes.

Here's an old post I happened on that may apply here:

Ask Meno Questions • Discussion 1
http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2012/10/14/ask-meno-questions-%E2%80%A2-discussion-1/
http://web.archive.org/web/20121015213156/http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/8791

Regards,

Jon

--

academia: http://independent.academia.edu/JonAwbrey
my word press blog: http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/
inquiry list: http://stderr.org/pipermail/inquiry/
isw: http://intersci.ss.uci.edu/wiki/index.php/JLA
oeiswiki: http://www.oeis.org/wiki/User:Jon_Awbrey
facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/JonnyCache

-----------------------------
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 .



 

-----------------------------
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 .