Frances, That was beautiful! Thank you! :)
So, why not phi spiral abduction? ...because what you just said where: the sign C (object observed), is the phi spiral and not M51 (but not really), and the sign A (representamen), is the FEM model (but not really) and the sign B (symbol, interpretant), is structural optimization of corneal collagen organization and not chemotaxis? Who, where and when is utterer, interpreter and commens? Are all three necessary? Is it necessarily dialogical? What of common background knowledge to even have a coherent conversation on equal terms? Best, Jerry Rhee On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 7:34 AM, <[email protected]> wrote: > Listers involved in the subject--- > > My wild probing guess at dealing with the thorny issue of determinations > and also categories (but without specific references to Peircean passages) > might be to differentiate and define the sorts of objects that could > broadly exist both outside and inside semiotics. My thought here turns to > the likelihood that for Peirce there are antecedent synechastic objects and > subsequent semiosic objects. > > Synechastic objects could determine just the *very ontic being* of a > sign, but also with say the very being of a possible interpretant for a > signer or mind; so that the synechastic categorial ordering might be (1) > object and (2) representamen and (3) signer as the quasi interpretant > effect in an effete mind. The phenomenal synechastic representamen is after > all also an existent phenomenal object, but one that synechastically might > not be a sign in acts of evolution, yet one that can grow semiotically to > be a sign in acts of semiosis. > > It seems likely that synechastic objects and as nonsign representamen have > the disposed bent or inclined trait to lean in the determined direction of > becoming a sign, and then further the sign of a referred semiosic object, > all by the natural evolutionary process of telic design, where the agent of > such design is a fated drive to seek with effort a good end goal. > > Semiosic objects that are caused synechastically to be referents, which > would subsequently grow from synechastic objects, would go on to determine > the *main epistemic kind* a sign can be in semiosis as an icon or index > or symbol; so that the semiosic categorial ordering might be (1) > representamen or sign vehicle and (2) object or signed referent and (3) > interpretant effect in the mind of a signer. > > What is determined or caused in semiosis is a restricted limit in a > marginal ground, which would be the restrained relation between the > vehicular representamen and its referred object, so that what remains in > the ground is a link between ideal continuity and real conformity. The > lawful governor that controls the grounded dyadic relation would be the > determined interpretant, thereby providing signers with some triadic > assurance of semiosic normality (from insister to resistor to trisistor). > > My ongoing semiotic struggle is for me to make some sense out of what > Peirce had to say on these matters. Your kind responses to this topic have > been most helpful. > > ---Frances > > > > > ----------------------------- > 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 > . > > > > > >
----------------------------- 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 .
