Helmut - yes, my apologies, you are quite right about the benefits
of using different terms. My problem was that I wasn't sure what YOU
meant by the term 'fact'.
Edwina
--
This message is virus free, protected by Primus - Canada's
largest alternative telecommunications provider.
http://www.primus.ca
On Wed 29/03/17 3:27 PM , "Helmut Raulien" h.raul...@gmx.de sent:
Edwina, List, Most of your post I dont see contradicting what I
wrote, except that you are against "mapping the semantic movement of
one term to another term". But why not trying to translate, if it
helps interdisciplinarity? Philosophers and lay persons talk about
"truth", "facts", "things", "concepts", and so on, and disagree with
each other all the time, often because their analysis is dyadic. So
why not make Peircean thinking more available by translating some of
his terms into common speech? I guess the net gain will be higher
than to ask everybody to learn Peirces terms and their meanings
first, because maybe they wont. And for myself a sort of internalized
dictionary is good too, so I do not always have to switch between the
term sets, when I read or think about one time Peircean and the other
time non-Peircean concepts. Best, Helmut 29. März 2017 um 19:28
Uhr
Von: "Edwina Taborsky"
Helmut, list - I'm not exactly sure what you mean by a 'fact'. I
think that is introducing another set of semantics into the Peircean
framework and I'm not sure that it has any function.
Again, the Dynamic Object functions ONLY within the triadic process
of semiosis. It doesn't 'exist' per se. Certainly, objective reality
exists but - within a semiosic process. That insect is objectively
'real', but it functions within a semiosic process made up of the
basic triad: Object-Representamen-Interpretant. And we can fine-tune
that into Dynamic Object-Immediate Object/Representamen/
Immediate-Dynamic-Final Interpretants.
So- the insect, in interaction with the bird watching it - functions
as a Dynamic Object within the bird's awareness of it. And...an
Immediate Object..which is transformed by the bird's 'mind' into an
Immediate and Dynamic Interpretant of 'possible food'.
But, the insect is itself presenting itself as a Dynamic
Interpretant of the biological processes that resulted in its actual
existence as 'that insect'.
And of course, the other semiosic processes are included: the habits
of morphological formation held within the Representamen of both the
insect and bird.
AND - increase the complexity by acknowledging that each 'part' can
be in a different categorical mode [Firstness, Secondness,
Thirdness].
As I've said repeatedly - the key factor of Peircean semiosis is
that it is not mechanical or linear but enables an understanding of
complex morphological generation which is enabled by constant
transformative RELATIONS between TRIADIC PROCESSES. Again, the full
triad is the SIGN. None of the other 'parts' of the triadic SIGN
exist 'per se' on their own. They only function - as functions -
within the full triadic interaction.
There is no point, in my view, of analyzing Peirce as 'just another
set of terms' used in mapping the semantic movement of one term to
another term. - the key concept in Peirce is that it sets up an
infrastructure enabling complex morphological transformations of
'meaning -to-meaning' . One morphology to another morphology.
Someone else who ventured into this area, is Spencer Brown, with his
Laws of Form. As he wrote:
"the theme of this book is that a universe comes into being when a
space is severed or taken apart. The skin of a living organism cuts
off an outside from an inside. So does the circumference of a circle
in a plane. By tracing the way we represent such a severance, we can
begin to reconstruct, with an accuracy and coverage that appear
almost uncanny, the basic forms underlying linguistic, mathematical,
physical, and biological science, and can being to see how the
familiar laws of our own experience follow inexorably from the
original act of severance". [1973:v].
Now - that sounds VERY similar to Peirce's cosmological outline
[1.412] of the emergence of the FORMS within the universe. [See his A
Guess at the Riddle].
And, as Spencer Brown acknowledges the influence of Peirce - one can
see that influence throughout his remarkable book.
Edwina
--
This message is virus free, protected by Primus - Canada's
largest alternative telecommunications provider.
http://www.primus.ca [1]
On Wed 29/03/17 1:05 PM , "Helmut Raulien" h.raul...@gmx.de sent:
Edwina, Maybe the dynamical object of a sign is not identical with a
certain fact: It is the fact for the sign, and the fact is not
exactly the d.o., it is the d.o only in the sign, and the fact is
much more, eg. the interpretant in another sign. So it is only
correct to say: "The dynamical object is a fact", if this "is" is not
meant as identity, but as being a subset of something, like when we
say: "A human is a mammal". Best, Helmut 29. März 2017 um 14:33
Uhr
Von: "Edwina Taborsky"
Helmut - the point to remember about Peircean semiosis is that it is
dynamic; it sets up an active process of informational transformation.
This is non-linear, so it is an error, I feel, to view Peircean
semiosis as a step-by-step action, i.e., a linear movement from
Object to Representamen to Interpretant. This view negates the
dynamic power of the Peircean framework.
Instead, a Dynamic Object - which is only a Dynamic Object because
it is currently functioning within a semiosic process where it IS the
Dynamic Object..well, this same Dynamic Object could be at the same
time operating in another semiosic process...where it is functioning
as the Dynamic Interpretant. And both processes are developing that
mediation process of the Representamen.
If you think of it, Peirce used this dynamic functionalism right
from the start; that is - in his cosmology, [1.412] where he outlines
the beginning of the universe as a Process of the emergence of
instantiations of matter, and then, the development of habits of
formation of this matter; and the outline of how these particular
'bits' interact with each other; how Thirdness functions to stabilize
these processes...and so on. How Firstness functions to introduce
novelty and diversity.
All other outlines of semiotics and semiology, i.e., non-Peircean,
ignore this complex dynamism of the Peircean framework. They operate
almost completely within the linguistic or within the human
conceptual framework and focus on that linear movement from 'this' to
'that'. As such, they are used to suggest 'hidden meanings' and 'the
unconscious'. But they have nothing to do with the actual morphology
of matter as an action of Mind and can't be used within the
biological and physic-chemical realms. The Peircean framework is
basic, in my view, to these realms...and I admit that I'm not much
interested in using Peirce within the linguistic or human conceptual
analysis.
Edwina
--
This message is virus free, protected by Primus - Canada's
largest alternative telecommunications provider.
http://www.primus.ca [2]
On Wed 29/03/17 3:35 AM , "Helmut Raulien" h.raul...@gmx.de sent:
Edwina, I agree. By "the sign" (and farer down "subsign") I didnt mean
any sign or the phaneron, but the sign of which the dynamical object
is a dynamical object. Best, Helmut 29. März 2017 um 01:57 Uhr
Von: "Edwina Taborsky"
Helmut - it depends what you mean by 'sign'. The Dynamic Object is
external to another Dynamic Object! But, in my view, since
'everything is in Signs' then, everything functions within a triadic
set of relations: the Object-Representamen-Interpretant.
The Dynamic Object is, when it is named as such, is already in a
semiosic interaction with another Object. So- it could be one
molecule in interaction with another molecule. Of an insect in
interaction with a flower. The interaction sets up, within each of
them [each Dynamic Object] an Immediate Object. This is transformed
by the habits-of-mediation in each of them [the Representamen]....and
both 'produce' an Immediate and Dynamic Interpretant.
So- the two molecules are both transformed - and might become one
larger molecule. Both are transformed.
And the insect interprets the nectar of the flower as food. The
flower interprets the contact of the insect as pollination. Both are
transformed.
Edwina
--
This message is virus free, protected by Primus - Canada's
largest alternative telecommunications provider.
http://www.primus.ca [3]
On Tue 28/03/17 7:03 PM , "Helmut Raulien" h.raul...@gmx.de sent:
Jon, Edwina, List, I think, the dynamical object must be external from
the sign, because all other parts, or, less mechanicallly spoken,
aspects, of it are internal of it. And, if nothing at all would be
external from the sign, the sign would have no connection to other
signs and be idiosyncratic. I guess, that the dyn. object is an
external entity from the perspective of the sign (a fact), but an
interpretant of another, usually slower, supersign. Which kind of
interpretant, I guess, refers to which kind of dynamical object it
provides: A final interpretant of the slower supersign provides to
the subsign a dyn. object which is something that has happened or
been in the past, a dynamical interpretant forms eg. a dyn. object
which is a material thing, an immediate interpretant forms a d.o.
which is a concept. About the fourth kind of dynamical objects,
metaphysical laws and axioms, I cannot say or guess anything but that
there are different theories. The supersign, as any sign, has all
three kinds of interpretant, but only one of them provides the
dynamical object for the subsign, is my guess. Best, Helmut 28.
März 2017 um 21:45 Uhr
Von: "Edwina Taborsky"
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 [4]
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 [5]
On Tue 28/03/17 1:55 PM , Jon Alan Schmidt jonalanschm...@gmail.com
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, USA Professional
Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman
www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt [6] - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
[7] 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 [8]
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 [9]
----------------------------- 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 [10] .
----------------------------- 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 [11] .
Links:
------
[1] http://www.primus.ca
[2] http://www.primus.ca
[3] http://www.primus.ca
[4] http://www.primus.ca
[5] http://www.primus.ca
[6] http://www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt
[7] http://twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
[8] http://www.primus.ca
[9] http://www.primus.ca
[10] http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm
[11] 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 .
