BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px; }
That's what I mean by your arrogance, Jon. Instead of speaking just
for yourself - you have to insist that you speak for Peirce. Or that
you speak for all and 'anyone else'. I have backed up my views of
Peirce repeatedly and won't do it again.
Edwina
--
This message is virus free, protected by Primus - Canada's
largest alternative telecommunications provider.
http://www.primus.ca
On Tue 28/03/17 3:41 PM , Jon Alan Schmidt jonalanschm...@gmail.com
sent:
Edwina, List:
I knew that I could count on you! As usual, you offer no evidence
to back up your assertions, so I have no reason to take them
seriously--and neither does anyone else.
Cheers,
Jon S.
On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 1:51 PM, Edwina Taborsky wrote:
Jon - I of course reject your views of Peirce and your insistence
that yours is the correct interpretation. I find such a claim to be
unscientific and arrogant. You are too literal and you don't, in my
view, absorb the full concepts of Peirce. You don't seem to be able
to appreciate the dynamic and adaptive nature of Peircean semiosis.
And I don't think that you actually DO 'adhere carefully' to what
Peirce wrote.
Of course I take exception to your writing 'as if' your outline IS
the correct replication of Peirce. You don't have the humility to
insert a phrase such as 'In MY [JAS] interpretation of Peirce, this
is....blah blah'. Instead, you write 'as if' you WERE Peirce. But you
aren't. And I totally reject your linear and yes, nominalistic and
mechanical outline.
Instead of saying "In MY [JAS} interpretation of Peirce, it makes no
sense....etc. ..You instead just say: 'It makes no sense'. You never
have the humility to acknowledge that your views - are your views -
and may, or may not, be 'valid' interpretations of Peirce.
And the Representamen in Peircean outlines does not exist 'per se'
but within matter or within concepts. It is the set of habits of
formation. Do you seriously think that these habits exist 'per se'
-out in the external world, all on their own? What are you - a
Platonist? The Representamen, as I've said before, is not a separate
entity. In my view, you misunderstand the 'correlates'; the fact that
the Representamen is the 'first correlate' doesn't mean that it is
singularly agential but that it, as holding the habits of formation,
is the primal force in transforming the input data from the
interaction with the external Dynamic Object...into the various
Interpretants. I don't think that you really understand the power of
this Representamen and the role it plays in the triadic sign; your
view - as I've said before, seems to me to reduce Peirce to
mechanics.
I've said before that I won't debate with you. I am sure that there
are many who will - and I'll leave that to you and them.
Edwina
--
This message is virus free, protected by Primus - Canada's
largest alternative telecommunications provider.
http://www.primus.ca [2]
On Tue 28/03/17 1:55 PM , Jon Alan Schmidt jonalanschm...@gmail.com
[3] sent:
Helmut, List:
Actually, your first quote below does not corroborate what Edwina
wrote. Rather, in context Peirce was saying there that the Dynamic
Object is not necessarily something that is outside the mind; it
might be another thought, or a fictional character, or a command, as
just a few examples. Elsewhere, including the other three quotes, he
makes it quite clear that the Dynamic Object is always external to
the Sign that represents it.
As I have pointed out before, Edwina has a unique "reading" of
Peirce that redefines many (perhaps most) of his semeiotic terms in a
way that--to me, anyway--renders her approach unrecognizable as
Peircean. For Edwina, the Sign is a triadic function that transforms
data from the Object (input) via the Representamen (mediation) to the
Interpretant (output); for Peirce, on the other hand, the Sign or
Representamen is the first correlate of a triadic relation, the
Object is the second correlate, and the Interpretant is the third
correlate. Edwina thus defines the Object, Representamen, and
Interpretant as relations within the Sign; whereas Peirce defines
them as subjects, one of which (Representamen) is the Sign, and the
other two of which (Object and Interpretant) have relations with the
Sign. This is evident from his division of each correlate and
relation into Possibles (1ns), Existents (2ns), and Necessitants
(3ns) based on the Universe or Modality of Being to which they
belong. In Peirce's framework, it makes no sense at all to claim--as
Edwina did below--that the Representamen exists within the Dynamic
Object; rather, it stands for the Object to the Interpretant.
I predict that Edwina will now scold me for arrogantly treating "my"
interpretation of Peirce as the only correct one, and/or allege that I
am being Saussurean/nominalistic/"literal-bound" by adhering carefully
to what Peirce actually wrote about these matters.
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USAProfessional Engineer, Amateur
Philosopher, Lutheran Laymanwww.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt [4] -
twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt [5]
On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 10:50 AM, Helmut Raulien wrote:
Edwina, Here are four quotes from the Commens Dictionary. The first
corrobates what you wrote, that the d.o. is not outside of the mind
and its experience, the second quote says that it is a part of
reality, the third says, it is in itself, and the fourth says it is
what final study would show it to be. Maybe when I will think about
it, sometime I might be able to combine these aspects, but now they
still seem contradictive to me. Best, Helmut ---1--- 1906 |
Letters to Lady Welby | SS 197
… the dynamical object does not mean something out of the mind. It
means something forced upon the mind in perception, but including more
than perception reveals. It is an object of actual Experience.
---2--- 1906 | Prolegomena to an Apology for Pragmaticism |
CP 4.536
… we have to distinguish the Immediate Object, which is the Object
as the Sign itself represents it, and whose Being is thus dependent
upon the Representation of it in the Sign, from the Dynamical Object,
which is the Reality which by some means contrives to determine the
Sign to its Representation .
---3--- 1906 [c.] | On Signs [R] | MS [R] 793:14
[O]ne must distinguish the Object as it is represented, which is
called the Immediate Object, from the Object as it is in itself.
---4--- 1909 | Letters to William James | EP 2:495
As to the Object, that may mean the Object as cognized in the Sign
and therefore an Idea, or it may be the Object as it is regardless of
any particular aspect of it, the Object in such relations as unlimited
and final study would show it to be. The former I call the Immediate
Object, the latter the Dynamical Object. For the latter is the Object
that Dynamical Science (or what at this day would be called
“Objective” science) can investigate. 27. März 2017 um 21:36
Uhr
Von: "Edwina Taborsky"
Helmut - in my view, ALL material and conceptual existences are
Signs. They ALL function within the triadic set of Relations:
Object-Representamen-Interpretant.
Therefore, there is no such thing as a Dynamic Object 'in itself',
i.e., which exists outside of this interactive process. Certainly,
the laws of physics, held within the Representamen, change SLOWLY. As
Peirce pointed out, in 1.412 [A Guess at the Riddle] in the
development of habits - these habits will emerge and strengthen
themselves. So, I'd suggest that early physical laws developed rather
than emerged 'intact and final'. And for all we know, these physical
laws might change, slowly, in the future. Their stability is, of
course, vital as the biological realm with its less stable laws, is
therefore enabled to develop diversity.
I'm not sure what you mean by 'events and constellations of the
past'.
Again, the Sign, in my view, is a triad. The Representamen, also
called the sign [lower case] is a set of habits of formation and
exists WITHIN the Sign and therefore, WITHIN the dynamic object.
There is no such thing as a Dynamic Object which does not also have
its Representamen or set of habits that enable it to exist as such.
I do not agree with viewing the parts of the Sign [the Dynamic
Object, the Immediate Object, the Representamen, the Immediate,
Dynamic and Final Interpretants] as separate 'stand-alone' entities.
Edwina
--
This message is virus free, protected by Primus - Canada's
largest alternative telecommunications provider.
http://www.primus.ca [6]
On Mon 27/03/17 3:22 PM , "Helmut Raulien" h.raul...@gmx.de sent:
List, Edwina, I think, that there are four kinds of dynamical objects,
two of which do not change, one that may change, also due to the sign,
and one that changes for sure with every sign that has it for
dynamical object: Metaphysical laws and axioms (given they exist) do
not change, events and constellations from the past do not either,
persisting objects may, common concepts do for sure. Now, given I am
right with this, is it so, that the final interpretant of a sign with
a changing dyn. object is not only the theoretical approximation of
the immediate object towards the dynamical one, but the approximation
of immediate and dynamical objects towards each other? Or is it so,
that, as the dynamical object never changes at the time of the sign
(because then it is independent from it), only later, and the final
interpretant is part of this sign and not of one of the following, it
(the final interpretant) also is the theoretical approximation of the
immediate object towards the dynamical, theoretically frozen in time,
object? Uh, I dont understand myself anymore, so nevermind if you dont
either. Best, Helmut 27. März 2017 um 20:05 Uhr
Von: "Edwina Taborsky"
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 [7]
Links:
------
[1]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'tabor...@primus.ca\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
[2] http://www.primus.ca
[3]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'jonalanschm...@gmail.com\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
[4] http://www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt
[5] http://twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
[6] http://www.primus.ca
[7] http://www.primus.ca
-----------------------------
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 .
