List, JAS 1] Not everyone knows ’standard practice’ ; therefore, I consider it courteous to let the ignorant and uneducated reader of your post know that it is YOU who have inserted the word… and even, to further explain WHY. Why would you add such a word [‘merely] without explaining your intention?
2] So what if Peirce doesn’t use the words of ‘information sites where information is processed’. Is it heretical to explain his concepts using different terms?? Are you suggesting that this action of information processing doesn’t happen? What do you think analysis actually does? Just quote texts without examination of their meaning? What’s the point of that? The function of analysis is to understand the texts - and usually, this means explaining them in other ways..- multiple ways - using different terms and examples - and in different disciplines. Just robotically repeating the terms is not an analysis. 23 I have outlined Peirce’s analytic process - where as he pointed out in his reference to the semiotic process in his determining the weather [8.314] - he does indeed refer to ’the Object as expressed, is the weather at that time’ - and is quite different from the Dynamic Object. He also frequently refers to the Real Object - which is outside of the semiotic process. So- despite your claim - Peirce himself does often refer to an object outside of the semiosic process. 3] WITHIN the semiosic process, in its basic format, it is an irreducible triad of Object-Representamen/Sign- Interpretant…and in its more detailed format: …the full semiosic process is: Dynamic Object- ImmediateObject - Representamen/Sign - Immediate Interpretant- Dynamic Interpretant-Final Interpretant. I note again that the Real Object is outside of the semiosic process - but - it exists. 4]The above irreducible format of Object-Representamen/Sign-Interpretant is a key reason why I also reject your claim that the Dynamic Object is outside of the ’sign’. You stated that “every [dynamical] object stands outside of every sign that it determines . Therefore, if the entire universe is one immense sign, then its ‘[dynamical] object must nevertheless be external to it, independent of it, and unaffected by it”. I disagree with the above - because NONE of the three correlates of the semiotic triad and NONE of the six correlates of the semiosic process stand alone and independently . There is no such thing as a singular sign/representamen on its own. No such thing as a Dynamic Object on its own - independent of the other correlates. Peirce's outline of the semiosic process is that the Sign is a TRIAD; and is irreducible. [See for example, 1.480..where “representation necessarily involves a genuine triad. For it involves a sign, or representamen, of some kind, outward or inward mediating between an object and an interpreting thought” . And all Peirce’s definitions off the sign refer to its triadic nature..eg, “A representamen, or sign is anything [ not necessarily real] which stands at once in a relation of correspondence to a second third, its object and to another possible representamen, its interpretant….” 1901. R 1147. . Are you really saying that the Universe is ONLY the mediate relation [S/R] in the triad? Is ONLY the middle term of the triad of O-S-I?? And that the Dynamic Object, which Peirce himself defines as “the reality which by some means contrives to determine the Sign to its Representation” 4.536…”the dynamical object does not mean something out of the mind. It means something forced upon the mind in perception" SS 197. That is - the Dynamic Object is already taking part in the semiotic triadic process of determining meaning. Therefore - it is not, in my understanding, “standing outside of every sign that it determines’. The Dynamic Object, in my understanding, functions only within the semiosic process. And the same with the mediative term, the Representamen/Sign- it functions only within a triadic process. I simply cannot understand a universe understood as ONLY the singular mediative term…without the correlates of the Object and Interpretant - and don’t see how or why you break up the triad into independent parts.. Edwina > On Sep 7, 2024, at 8:39 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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 > <http://www.linkedin.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt> / twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt > <http://twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt> > On Sat, Sep 7, 2024 at 2:21 PM Edwina Taborsky <[email protected] > <mailto:[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.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 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.
