Edwina, List: No problem, it was a long shot but worth a try. In fact, your points about the two Objects are well-taken; and that is the part of my hypothesis that feels the most speculative, since what I quoted from Peirce and Short does not say anything about them. After all, the Dynamic Object *determines *the Sign/Representamen; so if there is no Dynamic Object, how can there be a Sign at all? So I think that we are actually on the same page there.
We also apparently agree that a Sign can have an Immediate Interpretant without also having a Dynamic Interpretant. You went on to suggest that it might be possible for a Sign to have no Interpretant at all; but if the Immediate Interpretant is defined as a range of possibilities (as we previously agreed), then that would be a Sign that is *incapable *of determining an Interpretant--and again, if that is the case, how can it be a Sign at all? That just leaves the fundamental issue of the thread title still unresolved, and I am not quite ready to give up yet. We now agree that the Sign is a triad in the sense that the *Immediate *Object and *Immediate *Interpretant are *internal *to it. What remains is whether the *Dynamic *Object and the *Dynamic *Interpretant are also *parts *of the Sign as a single triad, or *distinct *correlates of a triadic relation. It seems to me that if there can be a Sign *without *a Dynamic Interpretant, then the latter cannot be an essential *part *of the former; they must be distinct in *some *way. Furthermore, Peirce carefully chose the adjective "dynamic" (sometimes "dynamical" or "dynamoid") because of the indexical and reactive nature of the Object and Interpretant that he explicitly characterized as *external *to the Sign. CSP: It is usual and proper to distinguish two Objects of a Sign, the Mediate without, and the Immediate within the Sign. Its Interpretant is all that the Sign conveys: acquaintance with its Object must be gained by collateral experience. The Mediate Object is the Object outside of the Sign; I call it the Dynamoid Object. (EP 2:480; 1908) CSP: We must distinguish between the Immediate Object,--i.e., the Object as represented in the Sign,--and ... the Dynamical Object, which, from the nature of things, the Sign *cannot* express, which it can only *indicate* and leave the interpreter to find out by *collateral experience*. (EP 2:498; 1909) CSP: The Dynamical Interpretant is whatever interpretation any mind actually makes of a sign. This Interpretant derives its character from the Dyadic category, the category of Action ... the meaning of any sign for anybody consists in the way he reacts to the sign. (EP 2:499; 1909) Now, Peirce is evidently talking mainly about Sign-action involving *human *minds here, rather than the physico-chemical and biological Sign-action that is of primary interest to you. So the question becomes how to transfer the concepts from one context to the other. I think that Peirce himself may have been trying to point the way in two additional passages. CSP: I use the word "Sign" in the widest sense for any medium for the communication or extension of a Form (or feature). Being medium, it is determined by something, called its Object, and determines something, called its Interpretant or Interpretand ... In order that a Form may be extended or communicated, it is necessary that it should have been really embodied in a Subject independently of the communication; and it is necessary that there should be another Subject in which the same Form is embodied only in consequence of the communication. The Form (and the Form is the Object of the Sign), as it really determines the former Subject, is quite independent of the sign ... (EP 2:477; 1906) To me, this is saying that both the (Dynamic) Object and (Dynamic) Interpretant are distinct *Subjects *that are *independent *of the Sign, which causes the same Form that was previously *embodied *in the former to become *embodied *in the latter. CSP: I define a Sign as anything which is so determined by something else, called its Object, and so determines an effect upon a person, which effect I call its Interpretant, that the latter is thereby mediately determined by the former. My insertion of "upon a person" is a sop to Cerberus, because I despair of making my own broader conception understood. (EP 2:478; 1908) Here the Object is "something else" than the Sign, while the Interpretant is the "effect" of the Sign; so again, it strikes me as saying that they are *separate*. Of course, this is also the most famous quote demonstrating that Peirce intended his model of Sign-action to have very broad application. This has gotten a bit long, so I will stop there for now, and ask one more time--what do you think? Thanks, Jon On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 6:05 PM, Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> wrote: > Oh dear - it was certainly nice while it lasted. I'm going to disagree > with your suggestion that there could be a Representamen without an > external Dynamic Object...at some point in its experience. That is, I don't > see the Representamen - or any of the triad - as 'standing alone'. Peirce > DOES, after all, define the Representamen as 'the first correlate of a > triadic relation'. A Representamen, in my understanding, acts as > mediation and how can such an action exist - except within mediation or > interaction with something else? > > Equally, I can't see that the INTERNAL object, i.e., the Immediate > Object could exist without the iconic or indexical or symbolic stimuli of > an external Dynamic Object. I can, however, accept that there might be only > an internal Immediate Interpretant which never makes it to the externality > of being a Dynamic Interpretant. And it is still possible that the > Representamen might be functioning only within the stimulation of a Dynamic > Object-Immediate Object and does not actually produce even an Immediate > Interpretant. > > And I see your image of a triad made up of the Internal aspects of the > Object-Interpretant, I,e, the Immediate Object-Representamen-Immediate > interpretant, but, I still consider that the real genuine triad has to have > that externality. > > Edwina > > -- > > This message is virus free, protected by Primus - Canada's > largest alternative telecommunications provider. > > http://www.primus.ca > > On Fri 31/03/17 5:29 PM , Jon Alan Schmidt [email protected] sent: > > Edwina, List: > > At the risk of pressing our luck, since we have already unexpectedly > identified at least two points of agreement today, I would like to revisit > (selectively) some comments that I posted yesterday. > > CSP: A Representamen is the First Correlate of a triadic relation, the > Second Correlate being termed its Object, and the possible Third > Correlate being termed its Interpretant, by which triadic relation the > possible Interpretant is determined to be the First Correlate of the same > triadic relation to the same Object, and for some possible Interpretant. > (EP 2:290, emphases in original; 1903) > > > Notice that Peirce twice characterized the Interpretant as "possible"; > here is a second passage that touches on that. > > CSP: Namely, while no Representamen actually functions as such until it > actually determines an Interpretant, yet it becomes a Representamen as > soon as it is fully capable of doing this; and its Representative Quality > is not necessarily dependent upon its ever actually determining an > Interpretant, nor even upon its actually having an Object. (CP 2.275, > emphases added; c. 1902) > > > My understanding is thus that every Sign/Representamen has an Immediate > Object and determines an Immediate Interpretant, because those are > real possibilities that are internal to it; but evidently there might be > such a thing as a Sign/Representamen that has no Dynamic Object and/or > (especially) determines no Dynamic Interpretant, because those are > external to it. I wonder if recognizing these distinctions--possible vs. > actual, and internal vs. external--could be a way to reconcile "the Sign as > triad" (with Immediate Object/Interpretant) and "the Sign as one correlate > of a triadic relation" (with Dynamic Object/Interpretant). > > What do you think? > > Regards, > > Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA > Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman > www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt > >
----------------------------- 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 .
