Helmut - I think you have a lot of misunderstandings of Peirce - and can only suggest: Read Peirce.
And think: How can an entity organized within Firstness [ pure vague feeling] produce an entity organized within the much more restrictive mode of Secondness [an actual single form]? Think of this situation in terms of ‘information -content. Can an entity with a low information content [ ie, just a feeling]..produce an entity with a higher information content [ a singular thing]? How? Where does it get that increased information to form something that is so much more organized? How does pure indeterminacy [Firstness] produce something determined [ Secondness]. You are moving into magical assumptions! Tha’s why the outline by Peirce in “EP:272 “A Sign , or Representamen, is a First which stands iin such a genuine triadic relation to a Second, called its Object, as to be capable of determining a Third, called its Interpretant”…. ….Has to be understood as referring to ordinal numbers rather than the modal categories. Peirce warned of this error [p 271 note] “The conception of a First, improperly called an ‘object’ and of aSecond, should be carefully distinguished from those of Firstness or Secondness’. I am aware of a number of people on this list who insist that these words First, Second, Third, refer to he modal categories - but I’ve never understood how they can come to such a conc Again - if you read what he wrote - Peirce was referring to the RELATIONS between the ’nodes’ [Representamen, Object, Interpretant] and to these relations as determinants. He was not referring to their mode-of-being, or the categories. And - just a wee bit of thought - would lead you to realize that something in a. Mode of Firstness [pure indeterminacy] doesn’t have the informational capacity to produce something in a mode of either Secondness or Thirdness with their much more restrictive natures!!!!! Edwina > On Jan 9, 2024, at 11:08 AM, Helmut Raulien <h.raul...@gmx.de> wrote: > > > Supplement: All in all, I have the feeling, that by trying to distinguish the > representamen from the object, and the immediate from the dynamical object, > and including memory, then you look at more and more subsigns, the closer you > try to analyse. But maybe that doesn´t matter, because with the mind it is > the same, you cannot analyse mind by closer and closer looking at it? So, is > semiotics rather a matter of somehow hovering over the situation, a matter of > "Gestalt" (overall figure)? > > Another problem I see, is, that the sign determines the interpretant, that > would be an upward determination in categoriality- I know that not everybody > agrees, that sign-object-interpretant are categorically 1-2-3. This would > mean, that the categories do not only apply to modes of being > (classification), but also to generalization of triadic composition. I think > so, because, well, categories should apply to everything, or at least to > triadicity, whether this triadicity is a relation of classification, > composition, or determination. Anyway, from this point of view on, an upward > determination (from 1ns to 3ns) is odd. So I guess, that what determines the > interpretant is not only the sign, but the sign and the interpreter´s mind. > Mind, of course, includes 3ns. > > Gesendet: Montag, 08. Januar 2024 um 19:44 Uhr > Von: "Helmut Raulien" <h.raul...@gmx.de> > An: "Edwina Taborsky" <tabor...@primus.ca> > Cc: "Peirce-L" <peirce-l@list.iupui.edu>, "Edwina Taborsky" > <edwina.tabor...@gmail.com> > Betreff: Aw: [PEIRCE-L] Graphical Representations of the Sign by Peirce > Edwina, list, > > ok, I too think, that the DO does not exist without the sign, so the > "sleeping" memory, in this case the knowledge, that snow can be shoveled > away, is just a memory then. But in the next sign, when the person is aware > of a new white, fluffy layer on the lawn and the pathway, the knowledge of > new snow is part of the immediate object, because this information is > transported by the sign/representamen (while the real snow is not > transported, it keeps lying there, so it is the material part of the DO). And > the knowledge, that snow may be handled by using a shovel, is not part of the > sign, but comes from the memory. Now what is this remembered memory? Is it > part of the dynamical object of "snow, actual and general", or is this > memorization another representamen, that merges with the other representamen > to a blended one? But anyway I am confused now, because the knowledge, that > the white, fluffy layer is snow, comes from the memory too. So what is what? > Or is it not one sign, but a cascade or cluster of signs with different > objects, some from the memory, and others from the real snow? > > Best, Helmut > > > Gesendet: Montag, 08. Januar 2024 um 17:47 Uhr > Von: "Edwina Taborsky" <tabor...@primus.ca> > An: "Helmut Raulien" <h.raul...@gmx.de> > Cc: "Peirce-L" <peirce-l@list.iupui.edu>, "Edwina Taborsky" > <edwina.tabor...@gmail.com> > Betreff: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Graphical Representations of the Sign by Peirce > Helmut, list > I’m not quite sure if I understand your post - I don’t think that ‘habits’ > [sleeping in memory?] are equivalent to Dynamicl Objects - and the Dynamical > Object is always a part of the sign; ie, the DO doesn’t exist on its own > outside of the semiosic interaction. > > With reference to the Interpretant changing the nature of the Object, I’d > agree -within the understanding of the reality of evolution. That is, > > - a disease, formerly reduced in its effects by an antibiotic, ….understood > as O->reduction in effect, becomes, over time changed by those results [ > reduction in effect] to become immune to the antibiotic. > > - a tree, attacked by insects [ Objects]….which reduces its capacity to live > [Interpretant: by the reduction of the leaves]….develops internal chemicals > in the leaves to thwart the insects [O]. But then, the insects develop new > immunities to those chemicals! > > - a word [Object] — such as the word ‘virus’…. Changes its meaning over time… > > The point is - such changes in the nature of the functioning of the Object in > the world [ disease, insects, words] can only take place if the sign vehicle > [ the disease, the tree, the word] are functioning in a mode of Thirdness. > And Thirdness is vital to the nature of the universe. > > Again, I stress the importance of the categories in the functioning of > semiosis. > > Edwina > > On Jan 8, 2024, at 10:19 AM, Helmut Raulien <h.raul...@gmx.de> wrote: > > Edwina, yes, I agree. Only the model I used is different: While you say, that > the representamen grows, I talk about old and new sign. Like the snow > situation is a continuous thing in reality, in the mind of the interpreter it > serves as a new sign again and again. If you say, the snow situation is the > representamen, ok, then it grows, but for me the appearance of the snow > situation in the interpreter´s mind is the representamen in either case of > noticing it. What grows in the interpreter´s mind, is the object of snow. > Whether that is the immediate or the dynamical object, is hard to decide for > me: At times of no sign, it still is in the interpreter´s memory: How to > handle the snow. But while this knowledge is sleeping in the memory, it is > not a part of any sign, so it is dynamical object, i would say. Anyway, it is > hard for me to distinguish between immediate and dynamical/real object: An > object part may be dynamical in the intentional or effectual interpretant, > but immediate in the cominterpretant, and sometimes it may be hard to know > the size of the commens, because, especially in the internet, nobody knows > who is taking part in a discourse. I know, that the flow of determination can > categorally not go upwards. The object determines the sign, the sign the > interpretant, and the interpretant changes the object, which is some sort of > determination too. And then I guess, as the interpretant serves as a new > sign, this sign is, besides by the old interpretant, also determined by the > now having changed object. This looks like a redundancy of course, but if the > object is changed in a larger context/commens, this change too determines the > sign of a smaller (sub-) commens, and in this case, this determination part > is not redundant with the information/determination carried by the > interpretant in the narrower commens. Like this, i think we might better see > the complexity of all this, and how signs interact via object change, if we > construct or tell more examples. In signs including physical action, there is > an energetic interpretant, and the object change is material as well. The > material part of the dynamical object then is easy to identify, as it is > spatially defined, it can be marked. But the conceptual part of the dynamical > object can not, that is why it is not always easy to exactly tell it from the > immediate object, i guess. > > Best, Helmut > > > Gesendet: Sonntag, 07. Januar 2024 um 19:28 Uhr > Von: "Edwina Taborsky" <tabor...@primus.ca> > An: "Helmut Raulien" <h.raul...@gmx.de> > Cc: "Peirce-L" <peirce-l@list.iupui.edu>, "Edwina Taborsky" > <edwina.tabor...@gmail.com> > Betreff: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Graphical Representations of the Sign by Peirce > Helmut - I think one has to be clear about terms. Do you mean that the > Interpretant [ which is a relation not a thing-in-itself] becomes a new triad > or only a new Representamen? > > My own view is that the Interpretant, which ‘holds and moulds’ information, > contributes to the formation of both a new triad [as, for example, when > nutrients from the food-as-object, contribute to the formation of the > cell-as a triadic Sign] ; when information about the weather [as object] > contributes to my Interpretant decision to shovel the snow…and I then, > remember in the future what to do when snow arrives.. > > That is, this interpretant would also enhance the knowledge content of the > Representamen if it were operating in its mode of Thirdness. That is, > Representamens in a mode of Thirdness grow in informational content. > > And that’s another reason why it’s difficult to create a visual diagram of > the semiosic process - those modalities - which are rarely discussed on this > site. > > But, just as we acknowledge the semiosic determinative process of > O-R-I…..and even > DO-IO-R-II-DI-FI. [and I’m assuming everyone knows what these letters > stand for…. > > We also have to acknowledge the modal restrictions, > It is obvious that a Possible cannot determine anything other than a > Possible, and likewise a Necessitant cannot be determined by anything other > than a Necessitant (letter to Lady Welby of December 23, 1908 ) > > Essentially this sets up restrictions on the development of the informational > nature of the triad. That is, an Object in a mode of 2ns cannot > determine/produce an Interpretant in a mode of 3ns. A Representamen in a mode > of 2ns cannot produce an Interpretant in a mode of 3ns. > > And it gets even more complex when you Bring in the concept of the genuine > and degenerate categorical modes. > > That is, as an example, there is only one of the ten classes where the > Interpretant is in a mode of Thirdness. One has to consider - are all three > Interpretants in this mode? But - are they all ‘genuine Thirdness or is there > any one of the three that is in a degenerate mode [3-1 or 3-2, ie, Thirdness > degenerate in the 2nd degree or first degree]? > BUT - we have to consider that one cannot move from Firstness to Secondness > to Thirdness! Even within another mode - ie, you cannot move from 3-1 to 3-2 > to 3-3 without an external ‘assistance from another sign input]. > > So- the universe is a complex system. > > Edwina > > > On Jan 7, 2024, at 8:56 AM, Helmut Raulien <h.raul...@gmx.de> wrote: > > Cecile, List, > > I think, the interconnection towards other signs takes place where the > interpretant serves as a new sign. Especially, if the commens (e.g. the > conversation) is not a closed one, like between two people, but includes some > publishing (like in this conversation), then the conceptual dynamical object > (the concept´s intension) is changed. Or with an energetic interpretant, then > even the physical properties of a material object can be changed. For any > sign in any other commens for which the change of object may play a role, the > interpretant can serve as a new sign, which, in relation with the object, > causes a new interpretant, which again may serve as a new sign in the > original semiosis (the spiral). > > Best, Helmut > > > _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ARISBE: THE PEIRCE GATEWAY is now at https://cspeirce.com > <https://cspeirce.com/> and, just as well, at https://www.cspeirce.com > <https://www.cspeirce.com/> . It'll take a while to repair / update all the > links! ► 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 UNSUBSCRIBE PEIRCE-L in the SUBJECT LINE of > the message and nothing in the body. More at > https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/help/user-signoff.html . ► PEIRCE-L is owned by > THE PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary Richmond; and co-managed by him and Ben > Udell. > _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ > ARISBE: THE PEIRCE GATEWAY is now at > https://cspeirce.com <https://cspeirce.com/> and, just as well, at > https://www.cspeirce.com <https://www.cspeirce.com/> . It'll take a while to > repair / update all the links! > ► 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 UNSUBSCRIBE PEIRCE-L in the SUBJECT LINE of the message and nothing in > the body. More at https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/help/user-signoff.html . > ► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary Richmond; and > co-managed by him and Ben Udell. > _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ARISBE: THE PEIRCE GATEWAY is now at https://cspeirce.com > <https://cspeirce.com/> and, just as well, at https://www.cspeirce.com > <https://www.cspeirce.com/> . It'll take a while to repair / update all the > links! ► 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 UNSUBSCRIBE PEIRCE-L in the SUBJECT LINE of > the message and nothing in the body. More at > https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/help/user-signoff.html . ► PEIRCE-L is owned by > THE PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary Richmond; and co-managed by him and Ben > Udell.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ARISBE: THE PEIRCE GATEWAY is now at https://cspeirce.com and, just as well, at https://www.cspeirce.com . It'll take a while to repair / update all the links! ► 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 UNSUBSCRIBE PEIRCE-L in the SUBJECT LINE of the message and nothing in the body. More at https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/help/user-signoff.html . ► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary Richmond; and co-managed by him and Ben Udell.
