---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Tom Gollier <[email protected]> Date: Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 6:25 PM Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Abduction, Deduction, Induction : Analogy, Inquiry To: Jon Awbrey <[email protected]>
Jon, Thanks for your reply. If we take "object" in sense of an objective, why isn't "avoiding rain" the object? I really don't see how "rain" gets to be the object in either sense of "object". As for "coolness" being a sign of impending rain, that it is, but only within the context of a diagrammatic understanding of the "weather in Chicago". Other signs also function within such a sign/diagram — "cloudiness" for example. And, of course, the diagram/sign being employed could vary in complexity from something created in terms of temperature gradients, continental air masses, and such as that to one consisting of a couple of rules of thumb. In short, I'm not arguing there is no an object-sign-interpretant where "coolness" is the sign, but: 1. I would interpret this as: what is being felt (object), "coolness" (sign), and "rain" (interpretant), 2. And, this object-sign-interpretant is just one relationship within the diagram/sign, "weather in Chicago," that would, it seems to me, more clearly correspond with the situation being described. Tom
----------------------------- 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 .
