Von: "Edwina Taborsky" <tabor...@primus.ca>
Claudio - I'm not sure if I would agree that we can never change the Dynamic Object. Since semiosis is an interactive and continuous process, then I would say that our semiosic interactions are continuously changing 'that with which we interact'.
As an example, if I take a spring crocus as the Dynamic Object. It is, in itself, also a Dynamic Interpretant of a semiosic process made up of the triad of multiple Dynamic Objects with which it interacts [earth, sun, water.which are also ALL triadic Signs .]...operating within the Representamen habits of both itself [the bulb] and of the other triadic Signs [earth, sun..]. And my interaction with it, as a Dynamic Object, and an Immediate Object...mediated by my own Representamen knowledge...to result in that Immediate and Dynamic Interpretants of acknowledging it as a flower to be observed and not garbage to be thrown out.
My point is that everything exists within a triadic Set [Object-Representamen-Interpretant] and so we cannot say that the Dynamic Interpretant exists 'per se' on its own. It exists only within interactions, not necessarily with we humans, but with other forms of matter [in this case, earth, sun, water, insects, birds].. and all these interactions - which are also carried out within triadic Signs, will 'change' that Dynamic Interpretant. It will grow; it will produce more, it will supply food for another Sign [an insect, a bird]...
Edwina
--
This message is virus free, protected by Primus - Canada's
largest alternative telecommunications provider.
http://www.primus.ca
On Mon 27/03/17 8:11 AM , Claudio Guerri claudiogue...@gmail.com sent:
Edwina, Helmut, List,
I think that a very good aspect of Peirce's proposal is that there is no 'THE TRUTH' anymore.
Signs can only construct other signs (images, texts, speeches,etc.), perhaps, sometimes, "a more developed sign" (CP 2.228).
But never a definitive 'final explanation'... and this is very good for us: humans!!!
So, there is no sense for 'religious' fights, because everything is only a little aspect a bigger whole, which can be considered the 'Dynamic Object'.
We don't need to "achieve a true representation of a fact", because it IS "changing all the time".
It is enough if we can figure out a good explanation for our time, hoping that we will enlarge the concept tomorrow.
Art, Architecture, Design in general is only possible because of that fact: we can only construct an Immediate Object, one after an other... endlessly...
and that is exactly the chance to exist, and to be artists, architects, designers, composers, poets, etc., etc...
if the inquiry don't need anymore to be endless... then, we will be also definitively out of work.
To Edwina: "We would have no capacity to change both that dynamic object or our interactions with it." (quote)
You will probably agree that we can only change the Immediate Object
we can never grasp anything of the Dynamic Object without transforming it at the same time in an Immediate Object
the Dynamic Object is like "the carrot in front of the donkey" (I don't know if this is also an English _expression_), we will never reach it... happily...
All the best
Claudio
Helmut Raulien escribió el 26/03/2017 a las 15:12:Claudio, Edwina, List,I wonder whether the two kinds of truth are exactly the same as the two kinds of object. When two people talk about a common concept of a fact, then the dynamical object is the common concept as it exists outside of the talk (the sign). But this dynamical object is not the truth-as-the-fact. Though it is the truth-as-another-fact: The fact that the common concept exists and is like it is.The common-concept-as-a-fact changes, even due to this one sign.So it is hard to achieve a true representation of a fact which is changing all the time. I guess, that the only facts or dynamical objects that donot change, are metaphysical laws, like axioms, or deductions that have these axioms for premisses.That is why I doubt the theory by Peirce, that truth or a final interpretant can always be achieved or even just approached by (perhaps even endless) inquiry: It is like a crawling lizard hunting a leaping frog.Besides changing facts, and metaphysical (eternal) facts, there is a third kind of fact: A fact that is an event-as-it-has-happened, or something that has been in a certain state in the past.I think, that also this kind of truth cannot always be achieved by endless inquiry, because there might be information missing due to non-complete documentation.So I guess, that Peirces truth theory about endless inquiry merely applies to metaphysical facts.Or when the inquiry goes much faster than the change of fact, or when the documentation is complete...Best,Helmut26. März 2017 um 16:48 Uhr
"Edwina Taborsky" wrote:
The FACT that the content of the immediate and dynamic object are different indeed 'makes us just humans' but I'd say that it makes us 'humans'. That is, I'd remove the 'just' from the phrase. That means that our cognitive capacity, our capacity to learn, to 'have knowledge' means that we, with that capacity for reasoning and analysis, can think about that dynamic object; can think about our immediate object - and, the three interpretants.Without such a capacity, we would be unable to do anything other than mechanically react. We would have no capacity to change both that dynamic object or our interactions with it.
Edwina Taborsky
--
This message is virus free, protected by Primus - Canada's
largest alternative telecommunications provider.
http://www.primus.ca
On Sun 26/03/17 10:22 AM , Claudio Guerri claudiogue...@gmail.com sent:List,
forgive me for jumping in only very shortly
but...
I agree that that there can not be "alternative facts"
but for sure, there are only alternative interpretations.
And both concepts of immediate and dynamic object are a very clear explanation of that difference that makes as just humans...
All the best
Claudio
Helmut Raulien escribió el 25/03/2017 a las 20:05:List,In common language the word "truth" is used for two different things: The fact and it´s representation (the truth independent of observation, and the truth as represented- correct representatrion). In philosophy it mostly is only used for the representation, and means a correct representation of a fact.With one exception: Having looked at Wikipedia: "Truth": I would say, that the redundancy theory uses the term for the fact, otherwise "truth" would not be redundant (tautology, ok.).I would say, that "truth" in the sense of the fact is semantically redundant, because a fact is one of the things of which there can only be one. I think, there is only one person in the world who claims that there may be "alternative facts".Examples:"It is the truth, that Alice and Bob have married": "Truth" means the fact, and is redundant as a term, because you might as well just say: "Alice and Bob have married"."Paul told the truth when he said that Alice and Bob had married": Fact, redundant, because to tell means to speak about. "About" is the bridge between representation and fact, adresses the fact. The sentence can be said like: "Alice and Bob have married, and Paul has told that".Though the redundancy is not complete regarding the connotations: The first version of the statement implies the suggestion, that Paul does not always adress facts correctly (tell the truth), which the second version does not imply."Paul spoke the truth when he said that Alice and Bob had married": representation, not redundant. The truth here is not the fact, but what Paul spoke.Anyway, I guess it is very dangerous, that there are two completely different things which may so easily be conflated and confused, because they share the same term. Eg. the said person who claims alternative facts is a danger.I guess, that language in general is somewhat blurry about the distinction between representation and the represented. But in the case of the term "truth" it is a major problem, leading to confusion and misconceptions, even ideologies: Ideologies work with forged "facts", and are only able to do so, because the term "truth" is not clear. If there were two words for the two things (representation and represented), then it would be much more difficult to establish myths and conspiracy theories, which both are necessary for ideologies.I had thought about proposing to call the two types of "truth" dynamical and immediate truth, but this is confusing, I guess, because a dynamical object may be an immediate truth. Or "trueness" and "truth"? I dont know.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 .--Prof. Dr. Arq. Claudio F. Guerri
Facultad de Arquitectura, Diseño y Urbanismo
Universidad de Buenos Aires
Domicilio particular: Gral. Lemos 270
1427 BUENOS AIRES
Telefax: (011) 4553-7976/4895
Celular: (011) 15-6289-8123
E-mail: claudiogue...@gmail.com
----------------------------- 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 .
----------------------------- 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 .
