Helmut - in my view, ALL material and conceptual existences are
Signs. They ALL function within the triadic set of Relations:
Object-Representamen-Interpretant.
Therefore, there is no such thing as a Dynamic Object 'in itself',
i.e., which exists outside of this interactive process. Certainly,
the laws of physics, held within the Representamen, change SLOWLY. As
Peirce pointed out, in 1.412 [A Guess at the Riddle] in the
development of habits - these habits will emerge and strengthen
themselves. So, I'd suggest that early physical laws developed rather
than emerged 'intact and final'. And for all we know, these physical
laws might change, slowly, in the future. Their stability is, of
course, vital as the biological realm with its less stable laws, is
therefore enabled to develop diversity.
I'm not sure what you mean by 'events and constellations of the
past'.
Again, the Sign, in my view, is a triad. The Representamen, also
called the sign [lower case] is a set of habits of formation and
exists WITHIN the Sign and therefore, WITHIN the dynamic object.
There is no such thing as a Dynamic Object which does not also have
its Representamen or set of habits that enable it to exist as such.
I do not agree with viewing the parts of the Sign [the Dynamic
Object, the Immediate Object, the Representamen, the Immediate,
Dynamic and Final Interpretants] as separate 'stand-alone' entities.
Edwina
--
This message is virus free, protected by Primus - Canada's
largest alternative telecommunications provider.
http://www.primus.ca
On Mon 27/03/17 3:22 PM , "Helmut Raulien" [email protected] sent:
List, Edwina, I think, that there are four kinds of dynamical
objects, two of which do not change, one that may change, also due to
the sign, and one that changes for sure with every sign that has it
for dynamical object: Metaphysical laws and axioms (given they exist)
do not change, events and constellations from the past do not either,
persisting objects may, common concepts do for sure. Now, given I am
right with this, is it so, that the final interpretant of a sign with
a changing dyn. object is not only the theoretical approximation of
the immediate object towards the dynamical one, but the approximation
of immediate and dynamical objects towards each other? Or is it so,
that, as the dynamical object never changes at the time of the sign
(because then it is independent from it), only later, and the final
interpretant is part of this sign and not of one of the following, it
(the final interpretant) also is the theoretical approximation of the
immediate object towards the dynamical, theoretically frozen in time,
object? Uh, I dont understand myself anymore, so nevermind if you dont
either. Best, Helmut 27. März 2017 um 20:05 Uhr
Von: "Edwina Taborsky"
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 [1]
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 [2]
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 [3] . --
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]
----------------------------- 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 [4] .
Links:
------
[1] http://www.primus.ca
[2] http://www.primus.ca
[3] http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm
[4] 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 .
