> On Aug 25, 2016, at 11:54 AM, Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> wrote: > > Clark, list - thanks, I see your point, but my quibble is with the > interpretation of the 'Immediate Object'. > > I see it as a personal rather than common meaning. That is - you define the > immediate object as the average nature' whereas I define it as strictly > personal and limited to my own limitations of both sensation and experience.
Well it has to be both as I see it for the sign to be able to function. I can only communicate what I know in some sense and communication only works if there’s common knowledge with the person I’m communicating with. Yet at the same time the object as represented to me in the sign will have unique features - as you noted earlier a certain ‘feel’ will be part of that. So I’m not disputing that the immediate object can’t be purely shared, but neither can it be purely personal.
----------------------------- 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 .
