Helmut, Maybe you should finish your train of thought before you post it. That would make it easier for the rest of us to engage in dialogue with you. 😊
Gary f. From: Helmut Raulien <h.raul...@gmx.de> Sent: 30-Jun-18 16:07 Suppsuppsupp: Sorry, that this is becoming a monologue, this will be the last part of it. Instead of "imaginary" in the initial post, I think, that "ideational" is better, and it is not limited to the immediate object, which contains only the ideas transported by the sign. The DO too has an ideational part, the ideas in the world outside the sign. I wrote "really complicated", but maybe too, not: A function is a kind of relation. Relations are there or not, they dont unfold, they dont take time. But a relation (so a function too) is a being, something ontological, too (John Deely said so). It can arouse another function: A function of a function. This is a time-taking process again, and as a being, the first function is part of the spatiotemporal world. This process has to do with, or is, information. After all, every being is a function-that-is: Matter, e.g., is effete mind (Peirce), and mind is function or something like that. Instaead of "mattergy-world" I should have written "matter-energy-informedness-world". It includes functions-as-beings, but not functions-as-functioning, the part of theirs which does not exist, but is real. In German "reality" means "Wirklichkeit", which by regarding the word parts would mean (though not in the common use of the word) "effectliness": Not the things, but their effects. All this has very much to do with scopes and scales. Suppsupp: And between spatiotemporal and functional composition. Time is merely a matter of spatiotemporal composition. Functions are instants not taking time, having nothing to do with time. Bridging the gap takes time due to the spatiotemporal side of the gap. It looks like a sign process would take time, but it doesnt. What is taking time is its constant (not continuous) reaffirmation towards or from the mattergy world. All this gap-talk sounds like dualism, but only because it is crude. To uncrudify and undualize it would make it really complicated. Supp.: So the epistemic gap, pansemiotically generalized, is the gap between existence (being) and reality, thing and its function, mattergy-world and phaneron. List, One way that would make sense to me would be: Determination as a time-taking process is the shaping (indicating by limiting) of an object by a subject. When this process is finished, the sign is there and denotes the object. The subject is a being, and the object is a wordly real (dynamical) and an imaginary real (immediate). Being means that the subject exists, and real means that it functions (as an object). "Object" is the fuction of a subject in a sign, and (functionally) consists of dynamical and immediate object. In a function there is no time delay, only in the forming of a function (of reality being shaped or formed by being). To say that the subject determines the object means that it determines the sign via the object, as the object is a (functional) part of the sign. I guess that Peirce did not sufficiently distinguish between the subject and the dynamical object, or did not explicitly say that the object is not the thing but its function. Or maybe I am completey wrong, but this way makes the most sense to me. Best, Helmut
----------------------------- PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
