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

[Gary Richmond]

Benjamin Udell wrote: Object and signs are roles. They are logical roles, and their distinction is a logical distinction As I see it,  it's not that simple because of the dynamical object, the fact of inter-communication as well as internal inference, etc. Charles may mean something somewhat different from what I'm taking his two semiosical triads to be referring to (I hope he'll comment further on them at some point), but I'll show how I see the two through an example diagramming them in relationship to each other. [Btw, I would  recommend an analysis Charles posted 12/1/05--his "as if" post--in which he considers certain Peircean passages which brought him to his inner/outer notion] This is admittedly only a very preliminary analysis and I may see things differently as I consider the two triads further (I may be conflating some of the inner and outer aspects, or not connecting them properly--it appears, not surprisingly, to be a very complex relationship indeed) outer semiosical triad: The sign in this case is a particular line spoken in a particular production of Shakespeare's Much Ado About Nothing by a particular actor at one outdoor performance in a New York City park. |>  The audience members hearing it spoken are these (selected) interpreters: (a) a young acting student who is studying the given role, (b) an 8 y.o. child attending her first live play, (c) a Spanish speaking man without much English language skills dragged to it by his girlfriend. (d) the director of the play The dynamical object is whatever meaning/emotion Shakespeare, the actor, the director mean to convey/express in that line, through its delivery, etc. However this sign as reflected in semiotic processes of the various audience members are naturally very different semioses ( a, b, c and d) at the moment of their each hearing and "following the meaning" of the line: inner semiosical triad [read 1/2/3]: 1. The sign is pretty much whatever the line spoken is heard as (given educational backgrounds, language skills, the coughing of someone next to one interpreter, a thought of the need to pay a bill at just that moment) and what each takes it to mean, possibly accompanying thoughts, etc. 1/2/3 |>  3. The  interpretant also will be very different for each (much could be said about the various interpretants, but not in this diagram!) 2. The  immediate object varies considerably for each (you'll have to imagine what this might entail, but there is enough difference to suggest what I have in mind) Although this is perhaps different from how Charles sees the two relating, I connected them in the following way in a recent post [this kind of analysis "back and forth" between two communicators within the context of a real world of experience is also Peirce's approach in the "Stormy Day" letter to William James which, btw, has  pertinence to the present discussion] outer semiosical triad:  .   .   inner semiosical triad: .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .  sign sign:   .    .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .  |> interpretant |> interpreter .   .   .   .   .   .     immediate object dynamical object Well, whether or not this particular analysis will hold, the point is to connect the sign with the inferences of living, breathing, thinking, feeling, human intelligences (Man as symbol) and as this occurs in the world of experience where object and sign are not just roles. As for the individual as he is involved in these complex patterns of semioses: CP 7.583  We have already seen that every state of consciousness [is] an inference; so that life is but a sequence of inferences or a train of thought. At any instant then man is a thought, and as thought is a species of symbol, the general answer to the question what is man? is that he is a symbol.  . . Ben gives the inference process as a fourth element. 1. multi-objective optimization process ~ ~ 3. cybernetic process 2. stochastic process ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 4. inference process But there is no need for a fourth semeiotic element to explain such inference in the way of looking at matters as suggested by 7.583. Gary --- Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber archive@mail-archive.com