Edwina, List: ET: With regard to my view that the Dynamic Object and Dynamic Interpretant are external to the Sign, while the Immediate O and I are internal - I'll stand by that. No-one has convinced me otherwise.
No one is arguing otherwise. What Gary F. pointed out is that you also seem to be claiming that the Immediate Object and Immediate Interpretant are somehow internal to the "individual site-of-semeiosis," and therefore "subjective" in the sense that different sites-of-semeiosis produce different interpretive results. However, my understanding is that those different interpretive results are manifestations of different *Dynamic *Interpretants, rather than different *Immediate *Interpretants. The Dynamic Interpretant is any *actual *interpretant, so those can and do vary from one individual site-of-semeiosis to another for various reasons, including their different habits of intepretation; while the Immediate Interpretant is the entire range of *possible *interpretants that are inherent in the Sign itself. Your sensation of heat may be interpreted in many different ways (Immediate Interpretant), only one of which is your actual interpretation that it is coming from the sun (Dynamic Interpretant). ET: I don't see that the Immediate Object is internal to that external Dynamic Object! Not at all. Again, no one is arguing otherwise. Clark's comment was that the Dynamic Object *virtually* contains the Immediate Object, which is not the same as saying that the Immediate Object is *internal *to the Dynamic Object; the latter would instead entail that the Dynamic Object *actually* contains the Immediate Object. Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt On Sat, Aug 20, 2016 at 9:21 AM, Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> wrote: > Gary F - I'll try to be brief - as I've got the pickles, dill, oh..and the > Damson Plums and must get to 'real work'. > > Thanks for the reference.. > > With regard to my view that the Dynamic Object and Dynamic Interpretant > are external to the Sign, while the Immediate O and I are internal - I'll > stand by that. No-one has convinced me otherwise. > > The SITE of semiosis has to be a 'body' - whether it be a cell, a > molecule, an insect, a...This site is itself, in my view, a 'Sign', which > means that it is in semiosic/relational interaction with other Signs > and their informational output. So, if I, as a body, feel external data as > heat from the external sun [which is a Sign]...then, I process it > internally. > > I don't see that the Immediate Object is internal to that external Dynamic > Object! Not at all. That external Dynamic Object is releasing data but - > how I, a body, accept it may have little to do with that external Dynamic > Object. It depends on the organization of my Body. So, as a plant - I will > process that Dynamic Object [Sun] very differently than if I were a frog or > a dog or a..... ..and how much I *receive* of it [which will be the > Immediate Object]..differ according to my nature as a body/Sign. > > Then, how I will *interpret* it depends on input from other sources, > both external and internal [the amount of water in my body, the chemicals > in my body]...the bacteria, the ..etc..AND the organizational habits > [Representamen] of my Body...to result in the Immediate Interpretant > [internal] and the Dynamic Interpretant [eg, the muscles that result]. > > So- I consider that the body is itself, a Semiosic Sign, a complex > organization of Matter AND Mind, interacting with the environment and > itself in complex networks. Within itself, there is input of data from > internal 'bodies' [subsets] and internal output as well. etc > > Must go; again, thanks for the reference. That's also why I don't consider > that the Sign can ever be singular; it operates within complexity - even > the single semiosic act is never isolate. > > Edwina > > > ----- Original Message ----- > *From:* [email protected] > *To:* 'Peirce-L' <[email protected]> > *Sent:* Saturday, August 20, 2016 9:42 AM > *Subject:* RE: [PEIRCE-L] Dynamic/Immediate Object and > Determination/Causation > > Edwina, list, > > > > The reference you said you’d look up later is from “Some Consequences of > Four Incapacities” (1868, CP 5.264-317), W2:212, EP1:29: > > > > [[ 2. The same formalism appears in the Cartesian criterion, which amounts > to this: “Whatever I am clearly convinced of, is true.” If I were really > convinced, I should have done with reasoning, and should require no test of > certainty. But thus to make single individuals absolute judges of truth is > most pernicious. The result is that metaphysicians will all agree that > metaphysics has reached a pitch of certainty far beyond that of the > physical sciences;—only they can agree upon nothing else. In sciences in > which men come to agreement, when a theory has been broached, it is > considered to be on probation until this agreement is reached. After it is > reached, the question of certainty becomes an idle one, because there is no > one left who doubts it. We individually cannot reasonably hope to attain > the ultimate philosophy which we pursue; we can only seek it, therefore, > for the *community* of philosophers. Hence, if disciplined and candid > minds carefully examine a theory and refuse to accept it, this ought to > create doubts in the mind of the author of the theory himself. ]] > > > > I’m having a problem with your hypothesis that “the Immediate Object and > the Immediate Interpretant are internal, i.e., subjective.” Peirce makes it > pretty clear that they are internal *to the sign* in a way that the > dynamic object and interpretant are not; but you seem to be conflating this > with the idea that they are internal to the “individual site-of-semiosis.” > An individual bodymind may well be a sign, but it’s not *that* sign, the > sign (probably a proposition) which has an immediate object and > interpretant which are internal to itself. For *that* sign, it does not > make sense to speak of “input from internal sources.” Whatever comes from > inside is not “input.” (Actually I have a problem with your whole > input-output model, but that’s another story.) > > > > Gary f. > > > > } Instead of noblemen, let us have noble villages of men. [Thoreau] { > > http://gnusystems.ca/wp/ }{ *Turning Signs* gateway > > > > > > *From:* Edwina Taborsky [mailto:[email protected]] > *Sent:* 20-Aug-16 09:05 > > > > Gary, Jon, Clark, list, > > > > I'm having a problem with the designation of 'virtual'. > > > > My view is that both the Immediate Object and the Immediate Interpretant > are internal, i.e., subjective. As such, they are relatively at this stage > of semiosis, closed to informational input from external sources but are > now more open/vulnerable to informational input from internal sources - > such as the internalized format of the Representamen and the informational > input from other internal Signs *within the site of that individual*. > > > > So- the external Dynamic Object may provide specific data; the Immediate > Object may accept some of this data and the normative mode of organizing > this data *within that individual site* will produce an interpretive > result that The Sky is Falling. Or, the World is Flat. > > Within an other individual site-of-semiosis, the interpretive result will > be quite different. So, instead of positing that disease is caused by the > objective reality of Evil, it is explored as due to bacteria.. > > > > I have a problem with asserting that the 'dynamic object contains > virtually the immediate object' since this seems to suggest a > singular linearity - and an essentialist linearity as well. AND one where > objective reality is static rather than evolving. > > > > My point is that this would deny the learning capacity of the > Representamen; it would deny that the Representamen, as the site of > mediation of input data, *can learn* and can thus more truthfully mediate > that data to produce a truthful rather than fanciful Interpretant. Wouldn't > it also deny the influence of other information from other Signs - both > external and internal? And deny evolution? > > > > As noted in the quotes below - the Immediate Interpretant is a possibility > within the subjective horizons of one individual - NOT within a community > of individuals/questioniers - but within an individual. And as Peirce > noted, to put truth in the hands of one individual is 'most pernicious' > [I'll find the reference later...]. > > > > That is - I'm trying, I hope, to describe what I see as the powerful > capacity of the semiosic process to network, to explore a situation, to > LEARN and also - to produce more complex and diverse Signs. It does this > within a community of networked 'sites of semiosis'. That is - as Peirce > has also said - the universe is a complex and growing Mind...[again- I'll > find the reference later...but I must now go out to the Farmer's Market and > get to work on making pickles.] > > > > Edwina > >
----------------------------- 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 .
