Clark, List: I was responding to the implication by Stjernfelt (and Gary F.) that the Immediate Object is indexical for *all *Signs. If the intent was merely to observe that all *natural *Signs are Designative, then I have no objection, since all natural Signs are indeed Concretive Tokens.
Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 2:33 PM, Clark Goble <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Jun 20, 2018, at 12:22 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt <[email protected]> > wrote: > > GF: It’s important to note that Stjernfelt’s definition of the immediate > object is a functional one--the immediate object plays an indexical role > within the functioning of a Dicisign ... > > > According to Peirce, this is only true of *some* Immediate Objects--the > Existent ones for Signs that he classified as Designatives in the late 1908 > taxonomy. Immediate Objects can also be Possibles for Signs that are > Descriptives, or Necessitants for Signs that are Copulatives. > > My apologies as I’m just coming back to the list after having too little > time to read for quite some time. Are you talking about Stjernfelt’s > discussion of natural signs? If so that functional focus would make sense > rather than the more general case. But of course you’re completely right > that possibles as immediate objects are extremely important. >
----------------------------- 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 .
