> On Feb 2, 2018, at 10:25 AM, Jon Alan Schmidt <> 
> wrote:
> in the specific example of a bird fleeing upon hearing a loud sound, our 
> analyses of the semiosis

> The Dynamic Object (DO) is the loud sound itself.
> The Immediate Object (IO) is the bird's sensation of the loud sound.
> The Representamen (R) is, or at least includes, the bird's neural pattern 
> that stands for the loud sound.
> The Immediate Interpretant (II) is the range of possible effects of this 
> neural pattern on the bird.
> The Dynamic Interpretant (DI) is the actual effect of this neural pattern on 
> the bird, which is its flight.
How does your ordered list of biological temporal events differ from a 
simplistic causal sequence from the logic of antecedent to consequence? (With 
pragmatic omission of the material cause of the loud sound.)

That is, the initial (mechanical?) cause of sound is not stated so that the 
symbolic terms, symbolized as DO, IO, R, II, and DI lack concrete meaning.  

By lacking concrete meaning, I infer that each of five terms could be replaced 
with 2 terms that expressed a similar meaning, generating 10 terms, (DO1, DO2), 
(IO1, IO2), (R1, R2), (II1, II2), and (D1,D2).  Of course, one would need to be 
a little bit clever about how meaning of two words are associated with one 
symbol. (but, the intrinsic vagueness of each of these logic terms facilitates 
such substitutions of words for symbols.)

Of course, logically one could replace each partition of primary terms with 
more than 2 terms…
Substituting 3 terms for the identity of a symbol would generate an ordered 
list with 15 terms,
Substituting 4 terms for the identity of a symbol would generate an ordered 
list with 20 terms,
Substituting 5 terms for the identity of a symbol would generate an ordered 
list with 25 terms,
and so forth by drawing upon the different neural circuitry of the brain / CNS 
and neurologic/physiologic circuits.

Such a logical partitioning of grammar appears to mimic to the logical tactic 
that CSP used in the further development of his conceptualization of semiosis. 

Of particular interest is the case of adroitly substituting Firstness, 
Secondness and Thirdness for any three terms.
Pragmatically, this could require creating a host of new terms with meanings 
specified by the contexts within the ordering relationships within the 
collection of substituted terms.

One might think of the above sentences as a generative “speculative grammar” 
for creating a perplex logic.

Have fun!


PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L 
to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to . To 
UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to with the 
line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at .

Reply via email to