Edwina, Jon, List, Thanks to both of you for your good wishes for my recovery, and also to those who have sent off-list messages of encouragement. I am, as you can imagine, very happy to be at home (although I did learn some important lessons in patience during my weeks in the rehab facility). I'll continue with in home therapy for a week or so, then out patient therapy for several more. I expect full recovery in a couple of months.
ET: 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. This matter, and as you well expressed it, of having "learned and clarified my own views" from what Jon (and, I'd imagine you could add other list members names as well) has been explaining seems to me one of the great benefits of participating on peirce-l. Jon has expressed the same thought in the past--that your posts, and the back and forth between you, has helped him clarity his own thinking on certain semeiotic issues. The opportunity to clarify ones own thinking in difficult matters through dialogue here may, indeed, be one of the most valuable fruits of list participation. And, as I suggested in my last post in this thread, even reading such dialogue can offer considerable benefits for those who follow the argumentation closely. Best, Gary R [image: Gary Richmond] *Gary Richmond* *Philosophy and Critical Thinking* *Communication Studies* *LaGuardia College of the City University of New York* *C 745* *718 482-5690* On Sun, Apr 2, 2017 at 8:42 AM, Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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) > > > > [image: Blocked image] > > Gary Richmond > Philosophy and Critical Thinking > Communication Studies > LaGuardia College of the City University of New York > C 745 > 718 482-5690 <(718)%20482-5690> > > On Sat, Apr 1, 2017 at 2:41 PM, Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> > 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 >> >> On Sat 01/04/17 1:46 PM , Jon Alan Schmidt [email protected] 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 <[email protected]> >> 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 >>> >>> 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 <[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>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 .
