BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}Jon, Kirsti, list:
Yes - that's a key concept: Triadic RELATIONS - which, as Relations,
are interactive, dynamic, mediative and enabling transformations and
adaptations and yet, always, acknowledging the constraints of that
[also dynamic] Objective Reality.
Edwina
On Thu 22/03/18 11:22 AM , Jon Awbrey [email protected] sent:
kirsti, all ...
and a bridge further (pons asinorum)
to think in terms of fully-fledged
triadic relations ...
regards,
jon
On 3/22/2018 11:02 AM, [email protected] [1] wrote:
> Gary f.
> Do not loose hope. - It truly is cumbersome to proceed from
thinking in trichotomies into thinking in triads. - Most
> transform even trichotomies into dyads, or worse still, into
dichotomies.
>
> With dichotomies, one deals with negations, without mediation.
>
> Thus not in a Peircean way.
>
> Kirsti
>
> [email protected] [2] kirjoitti 21.3.2018 14:02:
>> 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.
>>
--
inquiry into inquiry: https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/ [3]
academia: https://independent.academia.edu/JonAwbrey [4]
oeiswiki: https://www.oeis.org/wiki/User:Jon_Awbrey [5]
isw: http://intersci.ss.uci.edu/wiki/index.php/JLA [6]
facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/JonnyCache [7]
Links:
------
[1]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'[email protected]\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
[2]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'[email protected]\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
[3]
http://webmail.primus.ca/parse.php?redirect=https%3A%2F%2Finquiryintoinquiry.com%2F
[4]
http://webmail.primus.ca/parse.php?redirect=https%3A%2F%2Findependent.academia.edu%2FJonAwbrey
[5]
http://webmail.primus.ca/parse.php?redirect=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.oeis.org%2Fwiki%2FUser%3AJon_Awbrey
[6]
http://webmail.primus.ca/parse.php?redirect=http%3A%2F%2Fintersci.ss.uci.edu%2Fwiki%2Findex.php%2FJLA
[7]
http://webmail.primus.ca/parse.php?redirect=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2FJonnyCache
-----------------------------
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 .
