Jon, I've a few questions. You wrote:
Namely, he shifts individuality from a category of being
to a category of description, relative to a particular
discourse situation that we may variously conceive as
a context of interpretation, an extended sign relation,
a frame of reference, or a universe of discourse.
Another way of saying it is that individuality
becomes interpretive and relative rather than
ontological and absolute.
1) I consider that the individual unit is a triadic sign, made up of that
Object-Representamen-Interpretant, and as such, is a spatio-temporal
'version' of the generality held within the Representamen. So, I agree that
the individual is 'interpretive and relative'...but it's interpretive to
both the Representamen AND the Object[s].
2) As such, it isn't a category [of being] as you point out, but is it
really a category of description, or is it merely, just a
description/interpretant of the information from the Object and the
Representamen?
Edwina
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jon Awbrey" <[email protected]>
To: "Clark Goble" <[email protected]>; "Peirce-L" <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2017 10:52 PM
Subject: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Universal/General/Continuous and
Particular/Singular/Individual
A Few Points Along This Line:
JA:https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/arc/peirce-l/2017-01/msg00055.html
JA:https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/arc/peirce-l/2017-01/msg00062.html
JA:https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/arc/peirce-l/2017-01/msg00063.html
JA:https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/arc/peirce-l/2017-01/msg00070.html
CG:https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/arc/peirce-l/2017-01/msg00100.html
Clark, List,
| There is nothing to prevent almost any sort of difference
| from being conventionally neglected in some discourse, and
| if 'I' be a term which in consequence of such neglect becomes
| indivisible in that discourse, we have in that discourse,
|
| ['I'] = 1.
I believe this is getting close to the heart of the issue.
Already by 1870 Peirce introduces a radical departure in
the status of individuals, and everything based on them.
Namely, he shifts individuality from a category of being
to a category of description, relative to a particular
discourse situation that we may variously conceive as
a context of interpretation, an extended sign relation,
a frame of reference, or a universe of discourse.
Another way of saying it is that individuality
becomes interpretive and relative rather than
ontological and absolute.
Regards,
Jon
On 1/17/2017 5:56 PM, Clark Goble wrote:
As I think through the dispute I think really what we’re getting at is
Peirce’s notion of the Universe of Discourse.
The question then becomes what distinguishes or differentiates one
universe of discourse from an other? We recognize
that there is not just one universe of discourse. For Peirce to denote is
to put the sign in relation to the object
of common communication. That is, a universe of discourse.
We can of course distinguish two universes such as the universe in which
Superman exists and the universe (such as
our own) in which he does not. But as soon as we concede this
distinguishing universes it seems to me much of what I
said follows as a corollary.
--
academia: http://independent.academia.edu/JonAwbrey
my word press blog: http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/
isw: http://intersci.ss.uci.edu/wiki/index.php/JLA
facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/JonnyCache
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------
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 .
