Thanks, very useful. However, water cannot self-identify since it is non sentient as far as we know, however, a human can self-identify and sentient. What would change in the water model if water were sentient and could self-identify - or as initially presented in the "self-identify" of the broader human model sentient, social, historical, conversational, changing "identity"?
On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 1:11 PM, Clark Goble <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Aug 25, 2016, at 10:06 AM, Bev Corwin <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hello everyone, I follow the discussions somewhat, however, not > consistently. Many interesting thoughts and wondering how they would apply > in situational case scenarios. So I have a question: How would you apply > some of these Peirce "Dynamic/Immediate Object and Determination/Causation" > ideas to a concept like "identity"? In particular, personal identity? > Thanks in advance. Best wishes, Bev > > > The immediate object would be the environment of speakers relevant to the > use. That would include the shared understanding of personal identity not > just in terms of abstract ideas but also practices and expectations. The > dynamic object would the the actual universal of personal identity. That in > turn would be what would be represented as the final idea of personal > identity after all the philosophers through time finish debating the > subject. > > A better example isn’t abstract philosophical terms that simultaneously > have social practices associated with it like *personal identity*. It’s > perhaps better to use a simpler example out of science like water. Water > had a certain sense in say the pre-modern world as the substance common to > lakes, rain, tears, rivers and oceans along with perhaps the more > social/philosophical notions of water as a fundamental element alongside > earth, fire and air. It was also tied to common practices like swimming, > watering crops, drinking to quench ones thirst and so forth. Finally it was > tied to expectations such as boiling when heated, freezing when > sufficiently cold, making one feel refreshed when drunk as one is thirsty, > etc. > > After the rise of modernism and especially science those notions of > fundamental elements were largely lost for all but some philosophers and > historians. Many of the expectations and practices were the same but now > included more specific ones such as boiling when reaching 100°C at STP. > However new notions included chemical understanding such as H2O. This > allows one to better distinguish between phenomenal aspects of water (how > it *seems to use* in our practices and expectations) from the more > objective aspects (its thermodynamic properties like boiling or freezing, > its molecular mass, variations due to number of neutrons, etc.). That in > turn allows one to play up those distinctions such as say Putnam does with > his twin earth experiment. > > So we can see the shared senses change. We could then, when we speak of a > particular conversation, talk of the most common or everyday uses among the > speakers in that conversation. So there would be a big difference between > the typical American speaking versus say a bunch of physics undergraduates > speaking about their physics homework. > > What’s interesting is that relative to the actual water stuff, the dynamic > object remains the same. But the immediate objects will vary significantly > among groups based upon their everyday understanding and practices. > Likewise there will be different sign-vehicles depending upon the community > in question. So French speakers will use the word “eau” while English > speakers will use the word “water” and chemists will tend to use the symbol > “H2O.” > > Causally the actual substance of water determines all of these. Likewise > semiotically water the substance determines water the universal which in > turn determines all these things. (H2O is a possible representation of the > water-subtance and thus is virtually within water as the substance and a > dynamic object) > > > ----------------------------- > 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 .
