BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px; }
Good heavens - what an ordeal! I can just imagine how painful - I'm
sure it's great to be home.
All the best for your rehabilitation..take it slowly but keep active
and exercising.
Yes, Jon and I are now finding common ground on many issues. I don't
think we are icons of each other but are able to operate and actually
- I've learned and clarified my own views from what he's explaining.
Edwina
--
This message is virus free, protected by Primus - Canada's
largest alternative telecommunications provider.
http://www.primus.ca
On Sat 01/04/17 4:12 PM , Gary Richmond [email protected]
sent:
Edwina, Jon, List,
Will wonders never cease? To see the two of you, once so far apart
in so many matters, find common ground on these few, albeit in my
opinion, exceedingly important semeiotic distinctions, is most
wonderful to behold.
Indeed, I feel that together you have moved thinking--at least
mine--regarding the nature of the sign quite a distance forward,
perhaps beyond anything I've read in the literature--or, at very
least, the condensed (succinct) form of posts to a forum such as this
clarifies ideas, casting a bright light on such distinctions and
definitions as you've been making. I should add in passing that I
tend to strongly concur with those points upon which you appear to be
in agreement.
Perhaps what has facilitated my understanding of your--and any
number of other cogent contributors-- recent exchanges (and in
several threads) is my having read them pretty much in a couple
sittings during the last couple of days. This hiatus in my reading
posts and participating on the list was the result of my having been
incapacitated most of this year, first with a problematic hip
replacement early in January, a painful hairline fracture of my femur
in February, a complete break of it early in March, necessitating a
revision (redoing) of the hip replacement involving a difficult
posterior approach (with more precautions, a long healing time, much
more pain, etc.) Following a week in hospital, I spent the last three
weeks in a rehabilitation center from which I was released yesterday.
I still have a long way to go to complete recovery--but at least I'm
at home!
This is all by way of explaning why I've been so quiet on the list.
I would like to add that I have been delighted to observe (at first,
sporadically and, recently, steadily reading through threads) the
high quality of discussion that has, in my opinion, characterized so
much of list discussion these first few months of the year. I think
Joe Ransdell would be pleased to see that his brain child, the
peirce-l forum, continues to produce valuable
philosophical/scientific/semeiotic work.
Best,
Gary Richmond (writing as list moderator)
Gary RichmondPhilosophy and Critical Thinking Communication
StudiesLaGuardia College of the City University of New YorkC 745718
482-5690
On Sat, Apr 1, 2017 at 2:41 PM, Edwina Taborsky wrote:
Jon, list - this is my second reply to this post. After thinking a
bit about it - I'd say that I do agree with your point:
Jon wrote: "I would suggest that an Immediate Interpretant is never
an actual interpretant that a Sign produces, but rather a range of
possible interpretants that a Sign may produce. In other words, the
Immediate Interpretant is the Sign's capacity to produce an actual
interpretant--i.e., a Dynamic Interpretant. "
As a 'range of possible interpretants' - these are dependent on the
sign/representamen, which is in turn determined by the
Dynamic/Immediate Objects. So therefore, the Affects of these two,
the DO and the IO, and their informational content, will move on
within the Representamen/sign and thus, be part of and both determine
and constrain the nature of the Immediate Interpretant.
So- therefore - I see - and accept, your analysis.
Edwina
--
This message is virus free, protected by Primus - Canada's
largest alternative telecommunications provider.
http://www.primus.ca [2]
On Sat 01/04/17 1:46 PM , Jon Alan Schmidt [email protected]
[3] sent:
Edwina, List:
I really appreciate this discussion, which has been very
enlightening. This time I am the one with a couple of quibbles,
which I hope will prove to be minor.
ET: And yes, I DO fully agree with your comment that the
sign/representamen must have the capacity to produce an Immediate
Interpretant - even if it does not do so, at this moment in time.
I would suggest that an Immediate Interpretant is never an actual
interpretant that a Sign produces, but rather a range of possible
interpretants that a Sign may produce. In other words, the Immediate
Interpretant is the Sign's capacity to produce an actual
interpretant--i.e., a Dynamic Interpretant. Furthermore, the
Immediate Object and Immediate Interpretant are internal to the
Sign--i.e., the Sign itself is a triad consisting of the
Representamen, Immediate Object, and Immediate Interpretant. I
suspect that this is precisely why Peirce's late 66-Sign
classification did not include the S-Oi or S-Ii relations as
distinct trichotomies.
ET: The Form or Dynamic Object is 'independent of the Sign' - but
only in its nature as an Object. As soon as it interacts with the
Sign-vehicle, then, it becomes a Dynamic Object and as such - it is
in a relationship with the sign. Before that - it is simply an
external Object.
I would suggest that the Dynamic Object determines the Sign, rather
than merely interacting with it. In other words, the Dynamic Object
is independent of the Sign in a certain sense, but the Sign is not
independent of the Dynamic Object in the same way; and similarly, the
Sign is independent of the Dynamic Interpretant in a certain sense (as
discussed above), but the Dynamic Interpretant is not independent of
the Sign in the same way. I suspect that this is precisely why
Peirce's late 66-sign classification did include the S-Od and S-Id
relations as distinct trichotomies.
ET: But then, since I also subscribe to a view that nothing at all
exists independently 'per se' and outside of networked semiosic
connections, then, if one follows this view through....it would
conclude that there is no such thing as a separate Object. All
'things' are in interaction with something else ...
Right, "separate" was too strong a word on my part; I agree that
every "thing" has real relations with other "things." The Dynamic
Object has a peculiar kind of relation with the Sign, which has a
peculiar kind of relation with the Dynamic Interpretant. However, I
would suggest that these are still relations that the Sign has with
two external "things," not relations that are somehow internal to
the Sign itself--i.e., the Sign (R-Oi-Ii), Dynamic Object, and
Dynamic Interpretant are the three correlates of a single triadic
relation, rather than the three components of a single triad.
I guess I should have made the thread title "Sign as Triad AND
Correlate of Triadic Relation," because that is the view on which I
seem to be settling now. Again, what do you think?
Thanks,
Jon
On Sat, Apr 1, 2017 at 7:22 AM, Edwina Taborsky wrote:
Jon, list - yes, there's a lot of agreement in our views.
So, first, the Sign must have a Dynamic Object- at some time in its
experience. For example, that could be some chemical trigger that
does not affect the body for years, that is dormant internally as an
Immediate Object for years before moving into the Interpretant phase.
And yes, I DO fully agree with your comment that the
sign/representamen must have the capacity to produce an Immediate
Interpretant - even if it does not do so, at this moment in time.
And I would agree that the internal triad is thus basic - and the
external parts could be called correlates - and are not necessarily
found at the same time. Again, I refer to that chemical affecting the
body which might take years to have a real effect.
The Form or Dynamic Object is 'independent of the Sign' - but only
in its nature as an Object. As soon as it interacts with the
Sign-vehicle, then, it becomes a Dynamic Object and as such - it is
in a relationship with the sign. Before that - it is simply an
external Object. That is, that chemical that affects the human or the
tree...is only a Dynamic Object when it actually interacts with that
human or that tree.
But then, since I also subscribe to a view that nothing at all
exists independently 'per se' and outside of networked semiosic
connections, then, if one follows this view through....it would
conclude that there is no such thing as a separate Object. All
'things' are in interaction with something else - even if it's merely
one grain of sand in interaction with the water flowing over it. That
chemical might not be a Dynamic Object to the human body but it is
such with something else - let's say with the water.
Edwina
--
This message is virus free, protected by Primus - Canada's
largest alternative telecommunications provider.
http://www.primus.ca [4]
On Fri 31/03/17 11:46 PM , Jon Alan Schmidt [email protected]
sent:
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 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 [5]
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, USAProfessional Engineer, Amateur
Philosopher, Lutheran Laymanwww.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt [6] -
twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt [7]
-----------------------------
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] [8] . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to
PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] [9] with the line "UNSubscribe
PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at
http://www.cspeirce.com/ [10]peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
Links:
------
[1]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'[email protected]\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
[2] http://www.primus.ca
[3]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'[email protected]\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
[4] http://www.primus.ca
[5] http://www.primus.ca
[6] http://www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt
[7] http://twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
[8]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'[email protected]\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
[9]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'[email protected]\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
[10] 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 .
