Edwina, List: I knew that I could count on you! As usual, you offer no evidence to back up your assertions, so I have no reason to take them seriously--and neither does anyone else.
Cheers, Jon S. On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 1:51 PM, Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> wrote: > Jon - I of course reject your views of Peirce and your insistence that > yours is the correct interpretation. I find such a claim to be unscientific > and arrogant. You are too literal and you don't, in my view, absorb the > full concepts of Peirce. You don't seem to be able to appreciate the > dynamic and adaptive nature of Peircean semiosis. And I don't think that > you actually DO 'adhere carefully' to what Peirce wrote. > > Of course I take exception to your writing 'as if' your outline IS the > correct replication of Peirce. You don't have the humility to insert a > phrase such as 'In MY [JAS] interpretation of Peirce, this is....blah > blah'. Instead, you write 'as if' you WERE Peirce. But you aren't. And I > totally reject your linear and yes, nominalistic and mechanical outline. > > Instead of saying "In MY [JAS} interpretation of Peirce, it makes no > sense....etc. ..You instead just say: 'It makes no sense'. You never have > the humility to acknowledge that your views - are your views - and may, or > may not, be 'valid' interpretations of Peirce. > > And the Representamen in Peircean outlines does not exist 'per se' but > within matter or within concepts. It is the set of habits of formation. Do > you seriously think that these habits exist 'per se' -out in the external > world, all on their own? What are you - a Platonist? The Representamen, as > I've said before, is not a separate entity. In my view, you misunderstand > the 'correlates'; the fact that the Representamen is the 'first correlate' > doesn't mean that it is singularly agential but that it, as holding the > habits of formation, is the primal force in transforming the input data > from the interaction with the external Dynamic Object...into the various > Interpretants. I don't think that you really understand the power of this > Representamen and the role it plays in the triadic sign; your view - as > I've said before, seems to me to reduce Peirce to mechanics. > > I've said before that I won't debate with you. I am sure that there are > many who will - and I'll leave that to you and them. > > Edwina > > -- > > This message is virus free, protected by Primus - Canada's > largest alternative telecommunications provider. > > http://www.primus.ca > > On Tue 28/03/17 1:55 PM , Jon Alan Schmidt [email protected] sent: > > 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 .
