Howard, lists,
For my part, your question is difficult for two reasons: 1. I don't know
much about biology, and 2. Peirce gets complicated when he considers the
semiotics of commands.
One could consider the protein as a dynamic interpretant from the
viewpoint of the protein. From the viewpoint of the genetic instructions
as commands, one could consider, as the determinative object, the
potential proteins, the protein possibilities (feasible, optimal,
probable, plausible, likely), what the instructions regard (or
"quasi-regard") as what _/should be/_.
[From CP 8.178, from an undated manuscript (excerpted in CP
8.177-185), apparently related to Lady Welby, which places it in the
1900s.]
[....] The Object of a Sign may be something to be created by the
sign. For the Object of "Napoleon" is the Universe of Existence so
far as it is determined by the fact of Napoleon being a Member of
it. The Object of the sentence "Hamlet was insane" is the Universe
of Shakespeare's Creation so far as it is determined by Hamlet being
a part of it. The Object of the Command "Ground arms!" is the
immediately subsequent action of the soldiers so far as it is
affected by the molition expressed in the command. It cannot be
understood unless collateral observation shows the speaker's
relation to the rank of soldiers. You may say, if you like, that the
Object is in the Universe of things desired by the Commanding
Captain at that moment. Or since the obedience is fully expected, it
is in the Universe of his expectation. At any rate, it determines
the Sign although it is to be created by the Sign by the
circumstance that its Universe is relative to the momentary state of
mind of the officer.
[End quote]
[From CP 8.315, EP 2:499, to William James, April 1, 1909]
[....] When the captain of infantry gives the word "Ground arms!"
the dynamic Interpretant is in the thump of the muskets on the
ground, or rather it is the Act of their Minds. In its more {active
/ passive} forms, the Dynamical Interpretant indefinitely approaches
the character of the {Final / Immediate} Interpretant; and yet the
distinction is absolute. The Final Interpretant does not consist in
the way in which any mind does act but in the way in which every
mind would act. That is, it consists in a truth which might be
expressed in a conditional proposition of this type: "If so and so
were to happen to any mind this sign would determine that mind to
such and such _/conduct/_." By "conduct" I mean _/action/_ under an
intention of self-control. No event that occurs to any mind, no
action of any mind can constitute the truth of that conditional
proposition. The Immediate Interpretant consists in the _/Quality/_
of the Impression that a sign is fit to produce, not to any actual
reaction. Thus the Immediate and Final Interpretants seem to me
absolutely distinct from the Dynamical Interpretant and from each
other. And if there be any fourth kind of Interpretant on the same
footing as those three, there must be a dreadful rupture of my
mental retina, for I can't see it at all.
[End quote.
In the text, "{active / passive}" is shown with the word "active"
above the word "passive" and without the forward slash. Likewise
with "{Final / Immediate}".]
Best, Ben
On 1/28/2015 8:30 PM, Howard Pattee wrote:
At 05:40 PM 1/28/2015, Gary Richmond wrote:
Ben wrote:
In the case of object, sign, interpretant, insofar as the object
determines the sign to determine the interpretant to be
determined by the object as the sign is determined by the object,
the order of semiotic determination is 'object, sign,
interpretant', although object, sign, interpretant are not to be
understood as acting like successive falling dominoes.
HP: I don't think I can assimilate this kind of abstract description
without some specific examples. I would like to understand how these
/general/ concepts can be used in an actual description of a
/realistic/ case of biosemiosis?
For example, a molecular biologist or a biosemiotician would briefly
describe a case in normal language like this: The base triplets in the
gene are /symbols/ that are /interpreted/ (/pace/ Barbieri who uses
"/coded/") by the cell (a very complex process that is itself coded in
the genes) so as to /determine/ (construct) the protein /object/.
Of course I agree with Ben that this triadic semiotic closure
<http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=%22semiotic%20closure%22&itool=QuerySuggestion>
of /symbol, interpreter, object,/ "is not to be understood as acting
like successive falling dominoes."
Gary R: One also, I suppose, ought in this connection rehearse
Peirce's use of the concept of determination, which is, of course,
not physical determination.
HP: In normal language one does say that the genetic /symbols/ in an
essential way /physically determine/ the protein /objects/ (along with
many epigenetic modulations).
Howard
-----------------------------
PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L
to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To
UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the
line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
