Helmut, List: Actually, your first quote below *does not* corroborate what Edwina wrote. Rather, in context Peirce was saying there that the Dynamic Object is not *necessarily *something that is outside the mind; it might be another thought, or a fictional character, or a command, as just a few examples. Elsewhere, including the other three quotes, he makes it quite clear that the Dynamic Object is always *external *to the Sign that represents it.
As I have pointed out before, Edwina has a unique "reading" of Peirce that redefines many (perhaps most) of his semeiotic terms in a way that--to me, anyway--renders her approach unrecognizable as Peircean. For Edwina, the Sign is a triadic *function *that transforms data from the Object (input) via the Representamen (mediation) to the Interpretant (output); for Peirce, on the other hand, the Sign or Representamen is the first correlate of a triadic *relation*, the Object is the second correlate, and the Interpretant is the third correlate. Edwina thus defines the Object, Representamen, and Interpretant *as *relations *within *the Sign; whereas Peirce defines them as subjects, one of which (Representamen) *is* the Sign, and the other two of which (Object and Interpretant) *have *relations with the Sign. This is evident from his division of each correlate *and *relation into Possibles (1ns), Existents (2ns), and Necessitants (3ns) based on the Universe or Modality of Being to which they belong. In Peirce's framework, it makes no sense at all to claim--as Edwina did below--that the Representamen exists *within *the Dynamic Object; rather, it stands *for *the Object *to *the Interpretant. I predict that Edwina will now scold me for arrogantly treating "my" interpretation of Peirce as the only correct one, and/or allege that I am being Saussurean/nominalistic/"literal-bound" by adhering carefully to what Peirce actually wrote about these matters. Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 10:50 AM, Helmut Raulien <[email protected]> wrote: > Edwina, > Here are four quotes from the Commens Dictionary. The first corrobates > what you wrote, that the d.o. is not outside of the mind and its > experience, the second quote says that it is a part of reality, the third > says, it is in itself, and the fourth says it is what final study would > show it to be. Maybe when I will think about it, sometime I might be able > to combine these aspects, but now they still seem contradictive to me. > Best, > Helmut > > ---1--- > 1906 | Letters to Lady Welby | SS 197 > > … the dynamical object does not mean something out of the mind. It means > something forced upon the mind in perception, but including more than > perception reveals. It is an object of actual Experience. > > ---2--- > 1906 | Prolegomena to an Apology for Pragmaticism | CP 4.536 > > … we have to distinguish the Immediate Object, which is the Object as the > Sign itself represents it, and whose Being is thus dependent upon the > Representation of it in the Sign, from the Dynamical Object, which is the > Reality which by some means contrives to determine the Sign to its > Representation. > > ---3--- > 1906 [c.] | On Signs [R] | MS [R] 793:14 > > [O]ne must distinguish the Object as it is represented, which is called > the Immediate Object, from the Object as it is in itself. > > ---4--- > 1909 | Letters to William James | EP 2:495 > > As to the Object, that may mean the Object as cognized in the Sign and > therefore an Idea, or it may be the Object as it is regardless of any > particular aspect of it, the Object in such relations as unlimited and > final study would show it to be. The former I call the *Immediate* > Object, the latter the *Dynamical* Object. For the latter is the Object > that Dynamical Science (or what at this day would be called “Objective” > science) can investigate. > 27. März 2017 um 21:36 Uhr > *Von:* "Edwina Taborsky" <[email protected]> > > > 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 > >
----------------------------- 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 .
