Helmut,
To clarify the point about common knowledge and the dynamical object: The
idea there is that in order to understand a sign, we need some sort of
collateral information, which means we need to have had some experience of
the things being signified. To put it more plainly, we need to have
Franklin,
I remember having had the wrong idea, that some signs donot have a dynamical object, and have mentioned the example of a unicorn, and then Clark Goble wrote, that in the unicorn-case the dynamical object is the concept of unicorn, that exists (if I remember it correctly). Of course,
Supplement: Please dont care too much about my below text, I think I have confused the dynamical object with the final interpretant, besides many other things with each other.
Franklin,
I remember having had the wrong idea, that some signs donot have a dynamical object, and have
Helmut,
The unicorn issue is one that I am uncertain about. There's not much more
to say about it at this point, as I don't recall what CSP had to say about
such things, and I haven't put much thought into it with respect to the
semiotic point of view. One thing I could mention is that Peirce
Sungchul, list,
First of all, I want to point out that in the post I am replying to, it
said "Franklin, lists", but it turns out the email was only sent to one
list, Peirce-L. At least, that's what I see. Just thought I'd point that
out.
Second of all, I think I should be perfectly frank with
Helmut,
You're welcome, and I'm glad it was so helpful to you.
I wish you the best of luck with the letters to Welby, and I express a word
of caution regarding them. It probably doesn't get more complicated or
'higher-level' in understanding than those letters, and much of what is
going on there
