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 distinguished between natural classes and artificial classes, and I think it is safe to say that unicorn is an artificial class. This leaves in doubt whether there is any genuine information about it, or whether there is a dynamical object. I don't really like the suggestion that there is no dynamical object in this case, but I suppose it's something to consider. In any case, it is possible to have logical quantity--intension and extension--without it being informed logical quantity. To be candid with you though, these are just some stray thoughts, and I don't have a considered answer at this time. It's quite possible that Peirce gave a considered answer, but I don't recall it at this time.
The argument becoming a proposition when understood or believed is an idea that might be worth considering. I wouldn't exactly say that it becomes a proposition. It has already been mentioned in recent discussions in the recent discussion on the list that an argument can be considered as a proposition, and how that would work. Whether there is some special consideration with respect to the argument becoming understood or believed, I remain hesitant to say. I'm not sure what you meant about the "level of source of collateral information" and how it relates to the definition of the dynamical object, or the possible connection with the final interpretant. -- Franklin --------------------------------------------- On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 2:43 PM, Helmut Raulien <h.raul...@gmx.de> wrote: > > > 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 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, > this is neither a knowledge about unicorns, nor a belief in them, at least > not nowadays, but a character in myths and fairytales, or something like > that. Maybe we can call it an intension without an extension. But an > intension of an existing extension may also be wrong, for example, people > thought that all storks were white, before black ones were spotted in > Australia. Or, that electrons circle around atom cores, before orbitals of > the form of double-clubs were depicted. So it is hard to decide, I thought, > whether the dynamical object is a character in a myth, or an affair in real > nature. Or maybe, it is both? When a physicist, who is well-skilled about > aerodynamics, hears the argument: "Penguins have very small wings, so they > cannot fly", maybe the dynamical object is rather the real affair in > nature. But when a child who has just gotten able to speak, hears this > argument, then for this child the dynamical object may either be a > knowledge, grown-ups have (in this case, for the child, maybe it is not an > argument, but a proposition? Does an argument, once it is understood or > even just believed, become a proposition?-On-Topic!), or this is the > immediate object, and the affair in nature the dynamic. But this topic is > easily getting complicated: What, if a grown- up tells a child, that > electrons circle around atom cores, that all storks are white, or that > there is a father christmas? It is about collateral information. But at > which level of source of collateral information does the definition of the > dynamical object stop? If there was not a stop, it would not be the > dynamical object, but the final interpretant, isnt it? Or the answer might > be: The dynamical object is an affair in real nature, and if it is a > character in a myth, then this character and this myth is the affair in > real nature. I think, all this is very difficult, please donot feel obliged > to answer all this, I think, it is my turn now, to try to understand it by > reading some more papers. Lest you like this topic, and think, that it is > good also for everybody else in this list. > Best, > Helmut >
----------------------------- 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 .
