Helmut,
The dynamic object, according to Peirce, does not have to be a real thing; it
can be “altogether fictive”. One example he gives is “Hamlet’s madness.”
Although it is imaginary, it still determines the embodiment in a subject (such
as the reader of Shakespeare or a member of a theater audience) of a form which
is the thought-sign of that object, which in turn determines an interpretant
(such as an actor’s performance of the role, or a reader’s impression of the
character).
The unicorn is imaginary, but as an idea it already exists in the public
domain, and that quasi-existing idea is the dynamic object of the general sign
“unicorn.” Your personal idea of a unicorn as you read this sentence, on the
other hand, is the immediate object of your present use of the word to
represent the unicorn.
Jerry, the sign is not embodied in two different objects, it is embodied in two
different subjects. Communication always involves at least two subjects; even
thought, according to Peirce, is dialogic. Any given thought is “embodied” when
it actually occurs to (or is initiated by) a living subject, instead of being
just a possibility.
Gary f.
} Where the body is, there the eagles will be gathered together. [Luke 17:37,
RSV]
Where the corpse is, there the vultures will gather. [Luke 17:37, New English
Bible] {
<http://gnusystems.ca/wp/> http://gnusystems.ca/wp/ }{ Turning Signs gateway
From: Helmut Raulien [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: 25-Oct-15 12:32
Gary F.,
Thank you! Now I understand it like: The triad representamen / immediate object
/ interpretant is irreducible, and the interpretant is possibly a representamen
again, in the next sign, that relates to the same dynamical object. But this
only accounts for cases, in which a dynamical object exists. Or is there always
one? For example: A unicorn in a fantasy story: Does it not have a dynamical
object, or is the dynamical object merely unknown, might be a horse and a
narwhale skeleton, which two items a drunken sailor had combined in his mind on
12th october 1614? I mean, when Peirce writes: "It is necessary that it should
have been really embodied in a subject independently of the conmmunication",
that would mean, that there cannot be a pure fantasy. Interesting, but can make
sense, I think.
Best,
Helmut
25. Oktober 2015 um 13:41 Uhr
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
Helmut,
Peirce’s solution to your problem is the distinction between immediate and
dynamic(al) object.
[[ I use the word “Sign” in the widest sense for any medium for the
communication or extension of a Form (or feature). Being medium, it is
determined by something, called its Object, and determines something, called
its Interpretant or Interpretand. But some distinctions have to be borne in
mind in order rightly to understand what is meant by the Object and by the
Interpretant. In order that a Form may be extended or communicated, it is
necessary that it should have been really embodied in a Subject independently
of the communication; and it is necessary that there should be another subject
in which the same form is embodied only in consequence of the communication.
The Form (and the Form is the Object of the Sign), as it really determines the
former Subject, is quite independent of the sign; yet we may and indeed must
say that the object of a sign can be nothing but what that sign represents it
to be. Therefore, in order to reconcile these apparently conflicting truths, it
is indispensable to distinguish the immediate object from the dynamical object.
]] —EP2:477
-----------------------------
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 .
