smh...hopeless... :)
J On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 8:31 PM, Clark Goble <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Jun 21, 2016, at 1:55 PM, Gary Richmond <[email protected] > <[email protected]>> wrote: > > One interesting think in Parker’s book is the cosmological element in the > development of the categories. > > > Whoops. One interesting *thing*… LOL. Sorry for all the typos. I wrote > that quickly. Hopefully I don’t make an embarrassing mistake in it. > > One addition is this explanation of the sign that Ben put together some > years ago. > > 1. Sign: always immediate to itself. > 2. Object: > i. Immediate object: the object as represented in the sign, a kind of > statistical, "average" version of the given object. > ii. Dynamic object: the object as it really is. Also called the > dynamoid object, the dynamical object. > 3. Interpretant: > i. Immediate interpretant: total unanalyzed effect of the interpretant > on a mind or quasimind, a kind of starting point of the dynamic and final > interpretants, a feeling or idea which the sign carries with it even before > there is an interpreter or quasi-interpreter. > ii. Dynamic interpretant: the actual effect (apart from the feeling) of > the sign on a mind or quasi-mind, for instance the agitation of the > feeling. > iii. Final interpretant: the effect which the sign _would_ have on any > mind or quasi-mind if circumstances allowed that effect to be fully > achieved. The final interpretant of a response about the weather about > which one has inquired may consist in the effect which the true response > would have one's plans for the day which were the inquiry's purpose. The > final interpretant of a line of investigation is truth and _would_ be > reached sooner or later but still inevitably by investigation adequately > prolonged, though the truth remains independent of that which "you or I" or > any finite community of investigators believe. > > The immediate object is, from the viewpoint of a theorist, really a kind > of sign of the dynamic object; but phenomenologically it is the object > until there is reason to go beyond it, and somebody analyzing (critically > but not theoretically) a given semiosis will consider it to be the object > until there is reason to do otherwise. > > To say, therefore, that thought cannot happen in an instant, but requires > a time, is but another way of saying that every thought must be interpreted > in another, or that all thought is in signs. (C.S. Peirce, CP 5.254). > > Peirce referred to his general study of signs, based on the concept of a > triadic sign relation, as semiotic or semeiotic, either of which terms are > currently used in either singular of plural form. Peirce began writing on > semeiotic in the 1860s, around the time that he devised his system of three > categories. He eventually defined semiosis as an "action, or influence, > which is, or involves, a cooperation of _three_ subjects, such as a sign, > its object, and its interpretant, this tri-relative influence not being in > any way resolvable into actions between pairs". (Peirce 1907, in Houser > 1998, 411). > > 1.. A _sign_ (also called a _representamen_) represents, in the broadest > possible sense of "represents". It is something interpretable as saying > something about something. It is not necessarily symbolic, linguistic, or > artificial. > 2.. An _object_ (also called a _semiotic object_) is a subject matter of > a sign and an interpretant. It can be anything discussable or thinkable, a > thing, event, relationship, quality, law, argument, etc., and can even be > fictional, for instance Hamlet. All of those are special or partial > objects. The object most accurately is the universe of discourse to which > the partial or special object belongs. For instance, a perturbation of > Pluto's orbit is a sign about Pluto but ultimately not only about Pluto. > 3.. An _interpretant_ (also called an _interpretant sign_) is the sign's > more or less clarified meaning or ramification, a kind of form or idea of > the difference which the sign's being true would make. (Peirce's sign > theory concerns meaning in the broadest sense, including logical > implication, not just the meanings of words as properly clarified by a > dictionary.) The interpretant is a sign (a) of the object and (b) of the > interpretant's "predecessor" (the interpreted sign) as being a sign of the > same object. The interpretant is an _interpretation_ in the sense of a > _product_ of an interpretive process or a _content_ in which an > interpretive relation culminates, though this product or content may itself > be an act or conduct of some kind. Another way to say these things is that > the sign stands for the object to the interpretant. > Some of the understanding needed by the mind depends on familiarity with > the object. In order to know for what a given sign stands, the mind needs > some experience of that sign's object collaterally to that sign or sign > system, and in this context Peirce speaks of collateral experience, > collateral observation, etc. > > > ----------------------------- > 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 .
