[PEIRCE-L] Re: Seeing Things : What Makes An Object?

Gary, Helmut, List, Visual metaphors and perceptual analogies in general are very instructive -- I think they are my personal favorites -- but in logic, mathematics, and science our interest reaches up the abductive spectrum, from perception to where it shades off to concept formation, and on up

Re: Aw: Fwd: RE: [PEIRCE-L] Seeing Things : What Makes An Object?

Helmut, List ~ "A photon hits an atom: The photon and the atom (tokens) are the immediate object, the hitting event is the representamen, the effect (electron jumps to a higher orbit) is the interpretant ..." Why did the photon hit the atom? The collision ('hitting event') is the

RE: [PEIRCE-L] Seeing Things : What Makes An Object?

Thanks Clark! The Deely work I had in mind specifically is Purely Objective Reality (Mouton de Gruyter, 2009) but he’s touched on the subject (no pun intended!) in a number of places. Gary f. From: Clark Goble [mailto:cl...@lextek.com] Sent: 26-Oct-15 15:31 To: Gary Fuhrman

Re: Embodiment (Was Re: [PEIRCE-L] Seeing Things : What Makes An Object?)

List: Gary writes, > Your original question, “How is a sign embodied in two different objects?”, > does not make sense in that context. Sense making? My original question stands; the additional text does not clarify the meaning for me. I understand that you (Gary) can not make sense of

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Seeing Things : What Makes An Object?

> On Oct 26, 2015, at 12:26 PM, g...@gnusystems.ca wrote: > > There was indeed a “reversal” of usage of the terms “subjective” and > “objective” starting in the 17th century, but no such reversal with “subject” > and “object.” This is explained in the Turning Signs chapter at >

Aw: Fwd: RE: [PEIRCE-L] Seeing Things : What Makes An Object?

      Sung, List, And is a physical interaction a triadic Sign? Eg: A photon hits an atom: The photon and the atom (tokens) are the immediate object, the hitting event is the representamen, the effect (electron jumps to a higher orbit) is the interpretant, and the types "photon" and "atom"

Aw: Fwd: RE: [PEIRCE-L] Seeing Things : What Makes An Object?

Sung, List, And is a physical interaction a triadic Sign? Eg: A photon hits an atom: The photon and the atom (tokens) are the immediate object, the hitting event is the representamen, the effect (electron jumps to a higher orbit) is the interpretant, and the types "photon" and "atom" are the

RE: Embodiment (Was Re: [PEIRCE-L] Seeing Things : What Makes An Object?)

Jerry, you were ostensibly asking a question about Peirce’s text. Peirce’s text does not say, nor does it imply, that a sign is “embodied in two different objects.” Therefore your original question, as it stands, does not pertain to Peirce’s text, which is the context I referred to. Gary

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Seeing things

> On Oct 24, 2015, at 2:56 PM, Helmut Raulien wrote: > > Sorry, I think, I have had a misunderstanding based on the problem of > translating "power" to German: "Macht" (mightiness) is only the power, a > human or an institution has to achieve their particular iterests, but

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Seeing Things : What Makes An Object?

> On Oct 25, 2015, at 8:36 PM, Jon Awbrey wrote: > > There is reason to think that the sense of the word ''object'' that means > objective, purpose, target, intention, goal, end, aim, and so on is more > fundamental than the more restrictive sense of a compact physical

RE: [PEIRCE-L] Seeing Things : What Makes An Object?

Clark, list, There was indeed a “reversal” of usage of the terms “subjective” and “objective” starting in the 17th century, but no such reversal with “subject” and “object.” This is explained in the Turning Signs chapter at http://www.gnusystems.ca/TS/rlb.htm, which includes (toward the