Helmut. lists,
" . . .the concept of communication can be widened to the concept of
interaction- . . . "
I think 'interaction" is necessary but not sufficient for "communication".
Persons A and B can interact without communicating. We have seen many
examples of this in married couples and among members of these lists. This
is because "interactions" are dyadic and "communications" are triadic. In
other words, dyadic communications cannot lead to any communication. Only
triadic interactions can, as shown in Figure 1.
f g
Person A ------> Sign -------> Person B
(Object) (Interpretant)
| ^
| |
|__________________________|
h
*Figure 1. * Distinguishing between "interaction" and "communication". A
can interact with B by sending sound signals (i.e., through steps f and
g) but A may not be able to send any message to B, if B's mind is unable to
receive A's message for one reason or another (e.g., lack of a common
language, or A is too obsessed with his own ideas). A is said to
communicate with B IF and ONLY IF Steps f, g, and h are engaged, i.e., IF
and ONLY IF, the interaction is triadic, not dyadic. f = sign production;
g = sign reception or interpretation; h = information flow, i.e.,
communication
All the best.
Sung
On Sun, Oct 25, 2015 at 6:13 PM, Helmut Raulien <h.raul...@gmx.de> wrote:
> Frances, List,
> You distinguish very accurately between what belongs to or is a sign, and
> what doesnt. In Garys Peirce-quote below the sign concept is also limited:
> "I use the word "Sign" in the widest sense for any medium for the
> communication or extension of a Form (or feature)." So for Peirce it is
> communication or extension (what is extension in this case btw?), and for
> you it is representation, that makes something (eg. an object) belong to
> the sign-sphere. Now I guess, that the concept of communication can be
> widened to the concept of interaction- maybe this is, what Peirce means by
> "extension"? And then everything belongs to the sign sphere, because
> everything interacts. A physicochemical result might be seen as an
> interpretant, a kind of representation, so then we have pansemiotics, I
> guess. But of course it is helpful to distinguish between realworld- or
> mattergy-Signs and mental Signs. Or is a physicochemical representation in
> a result a quasi-mental Sign? Meaning: Had the universe not a quasi-mind,
> nothing could happen?
> Best,
> Helmut
>
> 25. Oktober 2015 um 19:06 Uhr
> frances.ke...@sympatico.ca wrote:
>
>
> To listers, here is my take on this snarl of twine for what it is worth.
>
> Objects emerging from pure phenomenal forms and their ideal things need
> only be nonsign representamen that bear phenomenal continuence and yield
> phenomenal existence. Objects that continue to exist as representamen can
> be synechastic objects that are not signs, and even semiosic objects that
> are either not signs or that are signs. Phenomenal objects can seemingly
> be mystically phantural, or materially physical, or mentally psychical.
> Existent
> synechastic objects initially are phenomenal representamen, but are not
> yet signs nor semiotic tridents or terns in their formal structure, until
> they become semiosic objects by way of representation; but some existent
> semiosic objects also need not be signs, until enacted as signs by
> signers. Existent semiosic objects are likely to become phenomenal
> representamen that are signs by way of represented evolution, and whose
> formal structure is hence a tridential tern; which is composed of a sole
> represented vehicle in a medium, and a pair of referred objects in a
> ground, and a tern of interpreted effects as a subject.
>
> The determinence and dependence in semiosis for the dyadic pair of objects
> and the triadic tern of interpretants is not necessarily progressive or
> hierarchical in a strict categoral manner. It seems that the immediate
> referred object determines the immediate vehicular representamen, and
> that this form of vehicle then determines and is embedded in the
> immediate interpretant subject, and that this immediate interpretant
> subject determines both the dynamic referred object together with the dynamic
> interpretant subject, and that this dynamic interpretant subject
> determines the final interpretant subject. The dependence of these
> semiosic forms would seem to be in the reverse order.
>
> The whole wide world is felt by stuff to be a phenomenal representamen,
> but not necessarily as an object nor a sign or signer. What makes forms
> and things and beings and objects and mediums into signs, and as signs of
> other objects and as signers of signs, is the act of representation, which is
> felt to permeate the whole phenomenal being of the world.
>
> (In the first grand division of informative or grammatic semiotics and
> semiosis, the common terms of sign and object and subject are often
> vague, and perhaps for contextual clarity should therein be called
> representants
> and referentants and interpretants. Furthermore, all semiosic forms as
> vehicles and mediums and objects and subjects are in fact phenomenal
> representamen
> and existent objects, and all such objects in fact are mostly and usually
> signs
> of objects.)
>
>
>
> *From:* g...@gnusystems.ca [mailto:g...@gnusystems.ca
> <http://g...@gnusystems.ca>]
> *Sent:* Sunday, 25 October, 2015 8:42 AM
> *To:* 'Peirce List' <peirce-l@list.iupui.edu>
> *Subject:* RE: [PEIRCE-L] Seeing Things : What Makes An Object?
>
>
>
> 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
>
> Gary f.
>
> } The map is not the territory. [Korzbyski] {
>
> *http://gnusystems.ca/wp/* <http://gnusystems.ca/wp/> }{* Turning Signs*
> gateway
>
>
>
> *From:* Helmut Raulien [*mailto:h.raul...@gmx.de*
> <http://h.raul...@gmx.de>]
> *Sent:* 25-Oct-15 07:16
>
> 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
>
> Supplement: In case of dynamic object, the sign process is a mixing- or
> otherwise combining-process of two or more matterginetic entities having
> been positioned side by side from the start. This is somehow special, while
> in the case of immediate object it is quite regular: More than one entity
> (eg. ideas or memory contents), combined in the mind to one objective.
>
>
>
>
> ----------------------------- 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
> .
>
>
>
>
>
>
--
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
-----------------------------
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 .
