BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}Jon, list - I'll try again
I know that the Immediate Object and Imm. Interpretant are internal
to the triadic Sign - that's my point. You seem to clarify your
example as referring to only ONE person over two time periods. But
that doesn't really change the problem which is that your model
doesn't acknowledge that the actual complex nature of the triadic
Sign enables and indeed functions - to permit CHANGE in the nature of
the information between the IO of Person A and the II of Person B [and
that includes a temporal succession in one Person A]. After all - you
seem to be asserting that the IO and II are the same!
By 'individual closure of the triadic Sign itself' - I mean the
[IO-R-II] of Person A which is individual to him and his cognition;
and the [IO-R-II] of Person B, which is equally individual to him and
his cognition.
The Representamen isn't simply a 'medium' or conveyor belt; it's a
mediation - i.e., it transforms the informational content of the IO
to the II. [And yes, I can find quotations from Peirce for both terms
of mediation and transformation]. That's the basic power of the
triadic Sign; its capacity to enable information growth and
adaptation. Your model doesn't permit this.
The 'existential nature of the Dynamic Object'?? That refers to its
existence as an objective reality - regardless of what you or I or
any person thinks of it. Again, that's basic Peirce.
Edwina
On Wed 21/03/18 10:14 AM , Jon Alan Schmidt [email protected]
sent:
Gary F.: Which aspects of my reasoning are you unable to follow?
Which questions in this context do you think that Peirce left open?
In all honesty, I have never been able to make heads or tails of
Peirce's example that you quoted, so I would be grateful if you
and/or others could shed some light on it.
Edwina: Immediate Objects and Immediate Interpretants are internal
to Signs, so talking about "the Immediate Object of Person A" and
"the Immediate Interpretant of Person B" fosters confusion, rather
than clarity--especially since Quasi-mind A and Quasi-mind B might be
temporally successive versions of the same Quasi-mind (or Person).
Nothing that I have said "nullifies the mediative role and function
of the Representamen"; on the contrary, the whole point is that the
Sign serves as "a Medium for the communication of a Form" (EP
2:544n22; 1906) from Quasi-mind A to Quasi-mind B. I do not know
what you mean by "the individual closure of the triadic Sign itself"
or "the existential nature of the Dynamic Object," but I suspect that
those comments once again simply reflect the fact that our models of
semiosis are very different. As for the "possibility of cognitive
difference between Person A and B"--if they are two different
Quasi-minds, then they are obviously different by virtue of having
been determined by different previous Signs; and if they are
temporally successive versions of the same Quasi-mind, then they are
obviously different by virtue of adding Sign Z as the Dynamic
Interpretant of Sign Y.
Thanks,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USAProfessional Engineer, Amateur
Philosopher, Lutheran Laymanwww.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt [1] -
twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt [2]
On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 7:02 AM, wrote:
Jon, Gary R,
Evidently I was wrong to think that I can follow your reasoning, so
I’d better leave this thread to those who can follow it, or those
looking for more definitive answers to questions that Peirce left
open. What I can do is provide here a more complete quotation from
the letter to James (14 March 1909) that Gary mentioned, which
includes several examples, and may be of some further use in the
discussion:
We must distinguish between the Immediate Object,—i.e., the Object
as represented in the sign,—and the Real (no, because perhaps the
Object is altogether fictive, I must choose a different term,
therefore), say rather 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. For
instance, I point my finger to what I mean, but I can't make my
companion know what I mean, if he can't see it, or if seeing it, it
does not, to his mind, separate itself from the surrounding objects
in the field of vision. It is useless to attempt to discuss the
genuineness and possession of a personality beneath the histrionic
presentation of Theodore Roosevelt with a person who recently has
come from Mars and never heard of Theodore before. A similar
distinction must be made as to the Interpretant. But in respect to
that Interpretant, the dichotomy is not enough by any means. For
instance, suppose I awake in the morning before my wife, and that
afterwards she wakes up and inquires, “What sort of a day is it?”
This is a sign, whose Object, as expressed, is the weather at that
time, but whose Dynamical Object is the impression which I have
presumably derived from peeping between the window-curtains. Whose
Interpretant, as expressed, is the quality of the weather, but whose
Dynamical Interpretant, is my answering her question. But beyond
that, there is a third Interpretant. The Immediate Interpretant is
what the Question expresses, all that it immediately expresses, which
I have imperfectly restated above. The Dynamical Interpretant is the
actual effect that it has upon me, its interpreter. But the
Significance of it, the Ultimate, or Final, Interpretant is her
purpose in asking it, what effect its answer will have as to her
plans for the ensuing day. I reply, let us suppose: “It is a stormy
day.” Here is another sign. Its Immediate Object is the notion of
the present weather so far as this is common to her mind and
mine,—not the character of it, but the identity of it. The
Dynamical Object is the identity of the actual and Real
meteorological conditions at the moment. The Immediate Interpretant
is the schema in her imagination, i.e. the vague Image or what there
is in common to the different Images of a stormy day. The Dynamical
Interpretant is the disappointment or whatever actual effect it at
once has upon her. The Final Interpretant is the sum of the Lessons
of the reply, Moral, Scientific, etc. Now it is easy to see that my
attempt to draw this three-way, “trivialis,” distinction, relates
to a real and important three-way distinction, and yet that it is
quite hazy and needs a vast deal of study before it is rendered
perfect. Lady Welby has got hold of the same real distinction in her
“Sense, Meaning, Significance,” but conceives it as imperfectly
as I do, but imperfectly in other ways. Her Sense is the Impression
made or normally to be made. Her Meaning is what is intended, its
purpose. Her Significance is the real upshot. [EP2:498]
Gary f.
On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 7:46 AM, Edwina Taborsky wrote:
Jon AS, list;
I have a problem with the set up as you outline it - which remains
abstract rather than a concrete example.
First - my problem is that I think the multiple terms for the three
Interpretants refer to their operation in a categorical mode - rather
than some unclear [to me at least] role in your argument.
Second - I simply don't see how the Immediate Object of Person A
becomes the Immediate Interpretant of Person B. And vice versa - how
the Immediate Interpretant of one person becomes the Immediate Object
of another person. That nullifies the mediative role and function of
the Representamen. And denies the individual closure of the triadic
Sign itself [IO-R-II] - and denies the existential nature of the
Dynamic Object.
That is - with your outline, there is no possibility of cognitive
difference between Person A and B.
What am I missing in your argument?
Edwina
Links:
------
[1] http://www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt
[2] http://twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
[3]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'[email protected]\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
-----------------------------
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 .
