The “average” notion is distinctly misleading. Suggests an external averager that does not exist. It is an abstraction at best, and typically ignores aspects of the dynamics object (but I think could even get it entirely wrong and still be the immediate object – it depends on context for this to happen)
John Collier Professor Emeritus and Senior Research Associate University of KwaZulu-Natal http://web.ncf.ca/collier From: Clark Goble [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, 23 June 2016 12:07 AM To: Peirce-L <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Copula and Being On Jun 22, 2016, at 1:10 PM, Benjamin Udell <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: i. Immediate object: the object as represented in the sign [DELETE], a kind of statistical, "average" version of the given object [END DELETE. Gary Richmond, as I recall, convinced me that my text there was mistaken]. Yes, I’m not sure I’d agree with the “average” notion either. At the Wikipedia articles there are footnotes with references to primary sources, often with links to the primary sources. I have to confess I don’t check Wikipedia on technical topics often due to most being a mix of good and egregious. But I think you and others are to be praised for trying to improve the Peirce related areas.
----------------------------- 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 .
