Bev, list: Identity and personal identity do not require consciousness; i.e., I, as an insect or paramecium, [a Dynamic Object when in an interaction with other 'things')...I do not have to have a consciousness of my self as this Dynamic Object. But, I do have to operate within the three categorical modes.
I have to have the mode of Firstness, or sensation, where I can feel . What do I feel? I have to have the mode of Secondness, accompanying this Firstness, which enables me to have a brute sensation of my finiteness and thus feel external stimuli within my horizons [these external stimuli which I feel are the Immediate Objects of that external stimulip...and also, feel the extent of my own materiality. Third, I have to exist, in my own personal existentiality, within the laws of Thirdness, which provides me with the infrastructural form of my insect form or paramecium form. But- even though I have no consciousness of this I do have a personal identity such that I exist as 'this' rather than 'that' [insect or paramecium]..and can react to external stimuli [Dynamic Objects]...which sensations become Immediate Objects within my senses. Edwina ----- Original Message ----- From: Bev Corwin To: Jon Alan Schmidt Cc: Jeffrey Brian Downard ; Peirce-L Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2016 12:06 PM Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Dynamic/Immediate Object and Determination/Causation 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 On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 11:58 AM, Jon Alan Schmidt <[email protected]> wrote: Jeff, List: I must confess that I have never found the passage that Gary F. quoted very helpful in understanding the two Objects and three Interpretants. In fact, I find myself disagreeing with aspects of Peirce's own analysis, which worries me very much! For example, how can "disappointment" (Dynamic Interpretant) determine "the sum of the Lessons of the reply, Moral, Scientific, etc." (Final Interpretant)? Thanks, Jon ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ----------------------------- 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 .
