Ozzie, John, Clark, list,
Yes, I've noticed the problem with the word "the" in the past. Peirce
often uses the definite article, but there are places where I used the
indefinite article instead, although I never became thoroughgoing about it.
Much of what you and Clark have just said seems rather thoughtful to me.
Tom, you wrote,
Second, however, the immediate object in one's mind may actually be
an 'average' version of the object described in textbooks or by a
parent, teacher or boss. If the individual has no relevant prior
experience upon which to draw, the immediate object that appears in
his/her mind will correspond (more-or-less) to this average. It is
a generalization, or stereotype.
That seems true to me. There are some further perspectives perhaps worth
considering.
Peirce somewhere talks about taking a companion's experience as one's
own, say, if the companion has better eyesight. The companion reports
discerning a ship on the horizon, while one sees just a blurry patch
there, which one lets count as the object in question. There's an idea
of the commind floating around there. Anyway, Peirce didn't always use
the narrowest interpretation of the word "experience." Still, the less
direct an experience, the less experiential it seems.
(Even a physical object of experience turn out on analysis to be
statistical in some sense, even when there is no practical prospect of
calculating such object's specific statistics. The table as one sees it
with all human-perceptual clarity is compatible with innumerable
alternate microstates.)
I'd say that the immediate object does sometimes seem an average, but
also sometimes a simplification. In the cases that you discuss, in which
it becomes complicated, it still seems to involve some simplification
from that which one would think if one could be more deliberate about
it, notwithstanding that it may also be more complicated than it would
be if one were learn enough about the object.
I remember years ago Joe Ransdell posted a message "What 'fundamenal
psychological laws' is Peirce referring to?" (22 Sept. 2006)
https://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg01394.html . Joe
wrote:
In "The Fixation of Belief" Peirce says that
"a man may go through life, systematically keeping out of view
all that might cause a change n his opinions, and if he only
succeeds -- basing his method, as he does, on two fundamental
psychologicl laws -- I do not see what can be said against his
doing so".
[End quote of Joe & Peirce]
As I recall, people in reply agreed that one of the laws that Peirce had
in mind must have been the law of association, but then what would the
other law be? At some point in the last two years I found a passage
where Peirce discusses the law of association and a law of
simplification as the two great psychological laws. Unfortunately, with
my recent computer problem, I lost the note that I made of it. Anyway,
my point is when discussing a Peircean conception, and discerning in it
a dependence on an idea of an average, it's useful to ask oneself (even
if only for a moment) also whether it depends on an idea of simplicity.
Tom, you wrote,
I would remove the word "statistical" from the original Wiki
statement, but retain the word average. It is already surrounded by
quotes, which warns the reader not to expect an exact calculation.
[End quote]
The word "average" should not actually be returned to the article since
as a Wikipedia article it needs, in representing Peirce's views, to
stick to things that Peirce actually said or virtually said, as opposed
to further conclusions drawn by Wikipedia article writers, even if the
conclusions seem good.
Best, Ben
On 6/23/2016 12:36 PM, Ozzie wrote:
John, Clark, Ben U, List ~
The term 'average' seems too narrowly conceived, both in the original
Wikipedia discussion of the immediate object, and in the present
discussion (of the Wiki passage).
Immediate object: the object as represented in the sign, a kind
of statistical, "average" version of the given object.
First, objects have multiple signs, which the Wikipedia definition
above fails to recognize by mentioning 'the' sign. That wording
creates an impression that the 'average version' of an object has a
specific, unidimensional interpretation. It seldom does. If an
object has 2+ relevant signs, the idea of a calculated average (sign)
has little meaning. The Wiki passage confuses this matter by referring
to a 'statistical' average, which implies (insists) that calculation
is possible.
Second, however, the immediate object in one's mind may actually be an
'average' version of the object described in textbooks or by a parent,
teacher or boss. If the individual has no relevant prior experience
upon which to draw, the immediate object that appears in his/her mind
will correspond (more-or-less) to this average. It is a
generalization, or stereotype.
For a person who *does have prior experiences to draw upon, the
immediate object that comes to mind may differ significantly from the
social-average version of that object.
For this worldly individual, the immediate object will be a complex
version of the object -- encompassing to varying degrees the social
consensus (learned) view, personal experiences with the object and
time spent reflecting upon prior experiences. More recent experiences
may be weighted more heavily than distant ones. Rewarding and painful
experiences may be weighted more heavily than those with no reward or
pain attached to them.
This view of the (immediate) object, too, is an average version which
resides inside of a single mind. It is a complex, weighted average
that cannot be represented by a number.
I would remove the word "statistical" from the original Wiki
statement, but retain the word average. It is already surrounded by
quotes, which warns the reader not to expect an exact calculation.
Regards,
Tom Wyrick
On Jun 23, 2016, at 3:16 AM, John Collier <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]> > wrote:
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]
<mailto:[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 .
