Claudio - I'm not sure if I would agree that we can never change the
Dynamic Object. Since semiosis is an interactive and continuous
process, then I would say that our semiosic interactions are
continuously changing 'that with which we interact'.
As an example, if I take a spring crocus as the Dynamic Object. It
is, in itself, also a Dynamic Interpretant of a semiosic process made
up of the triad of multiple Dynamic Objects with which it interacts
[earth, sun, water.which are also ALL triadic Signs .]...operating
within the Representamen habits of both itself [the bulb] and of the
other triadic Signs [earth, sun..]. And my interaction with it, as a
Dynamic Object, and an Immediate Object...mediated by my own
Representamen knowledge...to result in that Immediate and Dynamic
Interpretants of acknowledging it as a flower to be observed and not
garbage to be thrown out.
My point is that everything exists within a triadic Set
[Object-Representamen-Interpretant] and so we cannot say that the
Dynamic Interpretant exists 'per se' on its own. It exists only
within interactions, not necessarily with we humans, but with other
forms of matter [in this case, earth, sun, water, insects, birds]..
and all these interactions - which are also carried out within
triadic Signs, will 'change' that Dynamic Interpretant. It will grow;
it will produce more, it will supply food for another Sign [an insect,
a bird]...
Edwina
--
This message is virus free, protected by Primus - Canada's
largest alternative telecommunications provider.
http://www.primus.ca
On Mon 27/03/17 8:11 AM , Claudio Guerri [email protected]
sent:
Edwina, Helmut, List,
I think that a very good aspect of Peirce's proposal is that
there is no 'THE TRUTH' anymore.
Signs can only construct other signs (images, texts,
speeches,etc.), perhaps, sometimes, "a more developed sign" (CP
2.228).
But never a definitive 'final explanation'... and this is very
good for us: humans!!!
So, there is no sense for 'religious' fights, because everything
is only a little aspect a bigger whole, which can be considered
the 'Dynamic Object'.
We don't need to "achieve a true representation of a fact",
because it IS "changing all the time".
It is enough if we can figure out a good explanation for our
time, hoping that we will enlarge the concept tomorrow.
Art, Architecture, Design in general is only possible because of
that fact: we can only construct an Immediate Object, one after an
other... endlessly...
and that is exactly the chance to exist, and to be artists,
architects, designers, composers, poets, etc., etc...
if the inquiry don't need anymore to be endless... then, we will
be also definitively out of work.
To Edwina: "We would have no capacity to change both that
dynamic object or our interactions with it." (quote)
You will probably agree that we can only change the Immediate
Object
we can never grasp anything of the Dynamic Object without
transforming it at the same time in an Immediate Object
the Dynamic Object is like "the carrot in front of the donkey"
(I don't know if this is also an English expression), we will
never reach it... happily...
All the best
Claudio
Helmut Raulien escribió el 26/03/2017 a las 15:12:
Claudio, Edwina, List,
I wonder whether the two kinds of truth are exactly the
same as the two kinds of object. When two people talk about
a common concept of a fact, then the dynamical object is the
common concept as it exists outside of the talk (the sign).
But this dynamical object is not the truth-as-the-fact.
Though it is the truth-as-another-fact: The fact that the
common concept exists and is like it is. The
common-concept-as-a-fact changes, even due to this one
sign. So it is hard to achieve a true representation of a
fact which is changing all the time. I guess, that the
only facts or dynamical objects that donot change, are
metaphysical laws, like axioms, or deductions that have
these axioms for premisses. That is why I doubt
the theory by Peirce, that truth or a final interpretant
can always be achieved or even just approached by
(perhaps even endless) inquiry: It is like a crawling
lizard hunting a leaping frog. Besides changing facts, and
metaphysical (eternal) facts, there is a third kind of
fact: A fact that is an event-as-it-has-happened, or
something that has been in a certain state in the past.
I think, that also this kind of truth cannot always be
achieved by endless inquiry, because there might be
information missing due to non-complete documentation. So I
guess, that Peirces truth theory about endless inquiry
merely applies to metaphysical facts. Or when the inquiry
goes much faster than the change of fact, or when the
documentation is complete... Best, Helmut
26. März 2017 um 16:48
Uhr
"Edwina Taborsky" wrote:
The FACT that the content of the immediate and
dynamic object are different indeed 'makes us just
humans' but I'd say that it makes us 'humans'. That
is, I'd remove the 'just' from the phrase. That
means that our cognitive capacity, our capacity to
learn, to 'have knowledge' means that we, with that
capacity for reasoning and analysis, can think about
that dynamic object; can think about our immediate
object - and, the three interpretants.
Without such a capacity, we would be unable to do
anything other than mechanically react. We would have
no capacity to change both that dynamic object or our
interactions with it.
Edwina Taborsky
--
This message is virus free, protected by Primus -
Canada's
largest alternative telecommunications provider.
http://www.primus.ca [1]
On Sun 26/03/17 10:22 AM ,
Claudio Guerri [email protected] sent: List,
forgive me for jumping in only very shortly
but...
I agree that that there can not be "alternative
facts"
but for sure, there are only alternative
interpretations.
And both concepts of immediate and dynamic object
are a very clear explanation of that difference
that makes as just humans...
All the best
Claudio
Helmut Raulien escribió
el 25/03/2017 a las 20:05:
List, In common
language the word "truth" is used for two
different things: The fact and it´s
representation (the truth independent of
observation, and the truth as represented-
correct representatrion). In philosophy it
mostly is only used for the representation, and
means a correct representation of a fact. With
one exception: Having looked at Wikipedia:
"Truth": I would say, that the redundancy
theory uses the term for the fact, otherwise
"truth" would not be redundant (tautology,
ok.). I would say, that "truth" in the sense of
the fact is semantically redundant, because a
fact is one of the things of which there can
only be one. I think, there is only one
person in the world who claims that there may
be "alternative facts".
Examples:
"It is the truth, that Alice and Bob have
married": "Truth" means the fact, and is
redundant as a term, because you might as well
just say: "Alice and Bob have married".
"Paul told the truth when he said that Alice
and Bob had married": Fact, redundant, because
to tell means to speak about. "About" is the
bridge between representation and fact, adresses
the fact. The sentence can be said like: "Alice
and Bob have married, and Paul has told that".
Though the redundancy is not complete
regarding the connotations: The first version of
the statement implies the suggestion, that Paul
does not always adress facts correctly (tell the
truth), which the second version does not imply.
"Paul spoke the truth when he said
that Alice and Bob had married":
representation, not redundant. The truth here
is not the fact, but what Paul spoke.
Anyway, I guess it is very
dangerous, that there are two completely
different things which may so easily be
conflated and confused, because they share
the same term. Eg. the said person who claims
alternative facts is a danger.
I guess, that language in general is somewhat
blurry about the distinction between
representation and the represented. But in the
case of the term "truth" it is a major problem,
leading to confusion and misconceptions, even
ideologies: Ideologies work with forged "facts",
and are only able to do so, because the term
"truth" is not clear. If there were two words
for the two things (representation and
represented), then it would be much more
difficult to establish myths and conspiracy
theories, which both are necessary for
ideologies. I had
thought about proposing to call the two types
of "truth" dynamical and immediate truth, but
this is confusing, I guess, because a
dynamical object may be an immediate truth. Or
"trueness" and "truth"? I dont know.
Best, helmut
----------------------------- 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 [2]
.
--
Prof. Dr. Arq. Claudio F. Guerri
Facultad de Arquitectura, Diseño y Urbanismo
Universidad de Buenos Aires
Domicilio particular: Gral. Lemos 270
1427 BUENOS AIRES
Telefax: (011) 4553-7976/4895
Celular: (011) 15-6289-8123
E-mail: [email protected] [3]
Links:
------
[1] http://www.primus.ca
[2] http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm
[3]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'[email protected]\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
-----------------------------
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 .
