List: I do not ascribe my beliefs to Peirce, I scrupulously quote *his own* statements.
It is standard practice to put any words added within a quotation in square brackets, which *signals *that they are not in the original text. In Peirce's speculative grammar, the sign, object, and interpretant are *not *"informational sites where information is processed." He *never *describes them that way. As I observed before, Peirce also never states nor implies that a sign has *three *objects. The key to understanding his different references to objects in CP 8.314 (EP 2:498, 1909 Mar 14) is in its very first sentence. CSP: 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*. As Peirce repeatedly confirms elsewhere, a sign has only these *two *objects, immediate and dynamical. Accordingly, in his first example later in the same paragraph, the "Object, as expressed" is not some third object, it is the *immediate *object. Likewise, for any sign that has a real (not fictive) object, it is not some third object, it is the *dynamical *object. Peirce confirms all this in his second example later in the same paragraph. CSP: 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. Again, there is no third object. Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt / twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt On Sat, Sep 7, 2024 at 2:21 PM Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> wrote: > List, JAS > > I’ll continue to disagree with you - I do think that you post your own > beliefs -[ and I don’t see what is wrong with this!] for example, where > you ascribe to god, ‘creating and writing on the blackboard. My only > complaint is when you ascribe your beliefs to Peirce. > > And you ignore the definition of Peirce that God means ‘Mind’. [6.502] > Indeed, you tried to denigrate this quotation by adding your* own term *of > [merely] ..in brackets, before the word ‘mind’ - without informing us that > this addition was your own. Peirce didn’t write ‘[merely] mind’. He said - > ’the analogue of a mind..is what he means by “God”. And, “the > pragmaticistic definition of *ens necessariium* would require many pages; > but some hints toward it may be given. A disembodied spirit or* pure > mind”* [6.490 my emphasis]. > > So what if I use the term of* nodes* to describe the informational sites > where information is processed? That’s a red herring tactic. What’s your > problem with that? I didn’t declare their use as Peirce’s! But- these > terms do, in my view, help to clarify what is going on within the semiosic > triad. ..which is an active processing of hard data from an external site > into an interpretation. > > And most certainly, there is a basis for Peirce explaining that there are > three objects!! He specifically details them in 8.314 - which quotation I > already gave, where he refers to the “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”. See the difference? > > This third Object, which is external and not necessarily sensed - is > “There are Real things, whose characters are entirely independent of our > opinions about them; …5.384. The Real Object [the weather] only became the > Dynamic Object when Peirce looked at it. > > That is, I consider that you err in assigning the term of ‘Dynamic Object > to these external ‘Real things’ with which we are not, at the time, > semeosically interacting. . I consider that the term of Dynamic Object is, > as Peirce outlines, that first *contact *of external stimuli into the > senses. …which the semiosic triad will ‘indicate [8.314] …via the actual > *acceptance* of stimuli. The actual acceptance of stimuli is The > Immediate Object - “the Object as represented in the sign” 8.314. > > To give an example - if a dog is running around in he woods - there are > lots of ‘Real Objects’..which the dog doesn’t interact with. But they are > real! BUT - if it stops and sniffs the air, then - it has interacted with > a Real Object, by ‘connecting, semiotically, with it - and thus, accepting > the external stimuli which is coming from that Real Object. That Real > Object is now, a Dynamic Object..because it is *connected *to the dog’s > senses. BUT - not all the data of that external object can be sensed by the > dog..so..what IS sensed and semiotically worked on, is the Immediate > Object. It is this internal data - just a part of the full informational > content of the Dynamic Object and just a part of the full informational > content of the Real Object - that forms the Immediate Object, and it is > this IO data that is transformed by the mediative laws of the Representamen > into the various Interpretants. > > Edwina >
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 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 [email protected] . ► To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message NOT to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] 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.
