[peirce-l] Re: The "composite photograph" metaphor

[Charles F Rudder]

Ben,   I didn't meant to intimate that you are inarticulate or that I had no inkling of how your position differs from Peirce's.  I have asked for additional clarification because I have been trying to formulate for myself a reasonably succinct statement of your position relative to Pierce's that might serve as a benchmark for further conversation.   I have suspected that in addition to your penchant for "quadricity" you might disagree with Peirce on some ontological, epistemological, and phenomenological issues which, in responding to my posts, your might address, and which, it seems to me that, somewhat obliquely, in your last two posts you have.  Assuming that what I have referred to as assessing the "fidelity" of a sign's representation of it object is or includes what you are calling "verification," and, without going into further detail, here is how I presently see it.   I understand Peirce to say that there are two interrelated but distinguishable semiosical triads, namely, the triad (Interpreter - Sign - Object) and the triad (Interpretant - Sign - Object).  Your references to extrasemiosical collateral experience appear to me to focus on the triad (Interpreter - Sign - Object) and to isolate the (Interpreter - Object) relation (extrasemiosical collateral experience) from an Interpreter's relation to signs, interpretants of signs, and objects of signs--the semiosical (Interpretant - Sign - Object) relation.  That is, there is an immediate--non-mediated and, hence, cognitively autonomous relation between cognizing subjects and objects consisting of phenomena and/or things in themselves who are in some sense able to "see" or "recognize" objects and relations between and among objects as they are independent of how they are represented by signs and their interpretants.  On this account of cognition, signs and systems of signs are "instrumental" auxiliaries to cognition and their semiosical instrumentality is subject to being and is consciously or unconsciously continuously being extrasemiosically evaluated, validated, or "verified" by cognizing subjects; a process which Peirce, who makes cognition and cognitive growth an exclusively semiosical process, ignores.   Charles     On Sat, 19 Aug 2006 18:02:48 -0400 "Benjamin Udell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Charles, Joe, Gary, Jim, Jacob, list,   The occasion here is that Charles wrote, "I am still trying to find out if I have any grasp at all of what you think the (Interpretant -- Sign -- Object) relation omits." The idea that one can't even grasp what I'm saying leads me to make one last try.   --- Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber archive@mail-archive.com