Edwina, list,
The reference you said you’d look up later is from “Some Consequences of Four
Incapacities” (1868, CP 5.264-317), W2:212, EP1:29:
[[ 2. The same formalism appears in the Cartesian criterion, which amounts to
this: “Whatever I am clearly convinced of, is true.” If I were really
convinced, I should have done with reasoning, and should require no test of
certainty. But thus to make single individuals absolute judges of truth is most
pernicious. The result is that metaphysicians will all agree that metaphysics
has reached a pitch of certainty far beyond that of the physical sciences;—only
they can agree upon nothing else. In sciences in which men come to agreement,
when a theory has been broached, it is considered to be on probation until this
agreement is reached. After it is reached, the question of certainty becomes an
idle one, because there is no one left who doubts it. We individually cannot
reasonably hope to attain the ultimate philosophy which we pursue; we can only
seek it, therefore, for the community of philosophers. Hence, if disciplined
and candid minds carefully examine a theory and refuse to accept it, this ought
to create doubts in the mind of the author of the theory himself. ]]
I’m having a problem with your hypothesis that “the Immediate Object and the
Immediate Interpretant are internal, i.e., subjective.” Peirce makes it pretty
clear that they are internal to the sign in a way that the dynamic object and
interpretant are not; but you seem to be conflating this with the idea that
they are internal to the “individual site-of-semiosis.” An individual bodymind
may well be a sign, but it’s not that sign, the sign (probably a proposition)
which has an immediate object and interpretant which are internal to itself.
For that sign, it does not make sense to speak of “input from internal
sources.” Whatever comes from inside is not “input.” (Actually I have a problem
with your whole input-output model, but that’s another story.)
Gary f.
} Instead of noblemen, let us have noble villages of men. [Thoreau] {
<http://gnusystems.ca/wp/> http://gnusystems.ca/wp/ }{ Turning Signs gateway
From: Edwina Taborsky [mailto:tabor...@primus.ca]
Sent: 20-Aug-16 09:05
Gary, Jon, Clark, list,
I'm having a problem with the designation of 'virtual'.
My view is that both the Immediate Object and the Immediate Interpretant are
internal, i.e., subjective. As such, they are relatively at this stage of
semiosis, closed to informational input from external sources but are now more
open/vulnerable to informational input from internal sources - such as the
internalized format of the Representamen and the informational input from other
internal Signs within the site of that individual.
So- the external Dynamic Object may provide specific data; the Immediate Object
may accept some of this data and the normative mode of organizing this data
within that individual site will produce an interpretive result that The Sky
is Falling. Or, the World is Flat.
Within an other individual site-of-semiosis, the interpretive result will be
quite different. So, instead of positing that disease is caused by the
objective reality of Evil, it is explored as due to bacteria..
I have a problem with asserting that the 'dynamic object contains virtually the
immediate object' since this seems to suggest a singular linearity - and an
essentialist linearity as well. AND one where objective reality is static
rather than evolving.
My point is that this would deny the learning capacity of the Representamen; it
would deny that the Representamen, as the site of mediation of input data, can
learn and can thus more truthfully mediate that data to produce a truthful
rather than fanciful Interpretant. Wouldn't it also deny the influence of other
information from other Signs - both external and internal? And deny evolution?
As noted in the quotes below - the Immediate Interpretant is a possibility
within the subjective horizons of one individual - NOT within a community of
individuals/questioniers - but within an individual. And as Peirce noted, to
put truth in the hands of one individual is 'most pernicious' [I'll find the
reference later...].
That is - I'm trying, I hope, to describe what I see as the powerful capacity
of the semiosic process to network, to explore a situation, to LEARN and also -
to produce more complex and diverse Signs. It does this within a community of
networked 'sites of semiosis'. That is - as Peirce has also said - the universe
is a complex and growing Mind...[again- I'll find the reference later...but I
must now go out to the Farmer's Market and get to work on making pickles.]
Edwina
-----------------------------
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 .
