BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px; }See
my comments:
1) ET: But what happens when an instantiation is isolated from
interaction with other instances?
JAS: This sounds like "existing outside semeiosis." Is that even
possible? Once a Sign is "born"--determined by a Dynamic Object to
be capable of determining a Dynamic Interpretant--can it ever "die";
i.e., cease to be a Sign? I suppose that it might somehow lose that
capability; i.e., no longer have an Immediate Interpretant, which
would mean that it no longer qualifies as a Sign. Is that what you
have in mind, or something else?
EDWINA: No- I'm claiming that there is no such thing as an existence
outside semiosis. Let's say, again, a molecule of hydrogen. Its
Dynamic Objects are the hydrogen atoms; its Immediate Objects are
these 'trapped hydrogen atoms; its Representamen/sign is the laws
of chemical formation which have 'trapped' the atoms in their laws;
its Immediate Interpretant is the result of this - the Hydrogen
molecule which instantiates as the Dynamic Interpretant, the Hydrogen
molecule. Now - IF this Hydrogen molecule is isolated - it will
dissipate. That is - the categorical mode of Firstness is built into
the semiosic system such that stability for infinity - is impossible.
The first to dissipate will be the external existence, the Dynamic
Interpretant - that molecule. Can the Representamen dissipate if not
used/ articulated as instantiations? I'd suggest: YES. That means
that its capacity to produce an Immediate Interpretant also
dissipates. This would happen very rarely if at all, but, the
possibility of its occurrence is real.
Take another example. a cell, which is composed of various smaller
cells/molecules etc, and is organized according to habits. The cell
is a Dynamic Interpretant of the Dynamic ObjectS [and there are
multiple DOs] as organized by the semoisic interaction of the IO-
Representamen-II. Now, IF that cell is isolated from interaction -
since Firstness or dissipation is built into the system - then, it
will dissipate.
That is - I am also suggesting that Firstness is not simply quality,
feeling, chance - but - is entropy.
===============================================
2] ET: A cell that has only itself, isolate from all other cells -
will die and decompose. The fact that the cell includes 'habits' of
its formation won't help keep it alive; it MUST interact with the
external envt or it will decompose.
Agreed, although it seems to me that semeiosis continues to
happen--the dead cell is still, in some sense, interacting with its
external environment to bring about that very decomposition.
Obviously, though, that interaction is very different from when it
was alive.
EDWINA: Agreed - semiosis continues, in a different form than when
it was alive.
========================================================
3] JASWe really have not yet touched on where habits belong in our
new model. As I have said before, I see them as Final Interpretants;
and I did not want to bring those up until we finished sorting out the
Immediate and Dynamic Interpretants. This is right off the top of my
head, but if the Immediate Interpretant is internal (1ns) and the
Dynamic Interpretant is external (2ns), then perhaps the Final
Interpretant is what mediates between them (3ns). In other words, as
a habit, the Final Interpretant governs which actual effects the Sign
tends to produce from its range of possible effects. What do you
think?
EDWINA: This I will have to think about, since my definition of
habits gives it the ability to adapt and evolve. I'm not sure if the
Final Interpretant has this ability. HABIT does govern which
'actual effects the sign tends to produce from its range of possible
effects'...but is the Final Interpretant - which Peirce acknowledges
is open and may never be reached - is it the same as 'habit'? There
is a strong case for saying: Yes - as long as it has that ability to
adapt and evolve.
EDWINA - yes - incredible - but we do agree, and I think that this
model - that basic internal triad, but necessarily related to an
external Dynamic Objects or indeed to multiple Dynamic Objects -
gives the internal triad a tremendous flexibility and adaptive
capacity. Just what I've been looking for!
Wow. This will be a day long remembered--in a very good way! I
will be quite interested in learning whether and how this adjustment
affects your model in other ways as you contemplate and implement it
further.
Thanks,
Jon
On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 11:36 AM, Edwina Taborsky wrote:
See my replies:
1] ET: I agree with the above outline - except, again, for my
concern over confining the Sign-as-a-triad to its internal
composition. I'm thinking of, for example, a paramecium. Is it, as an
existential reality, confined only to its internal composition or is
it necessarily existential only because it is semiosically connected
to external information processes?
JAS: By Peirce's definition, anything that is properly described as
"an existential reality" is something that reacts with other like
things in the environment. If that is what you mean by being
"semiosically connected to external information processes," then we
are in agreement here, even if we confine the term "triad" to the
Sign as (internally) Oi-R-Ii. There still must also be the
(external) triadic relation Od-S-Id, unless the Sign never actually
determines a Dynamic Interpretant, in which case I guess we have only
the dyadic relation Od-S; i.e., brute reaction without mediation.
EDWINA: An 'existential reality' doesn't react just with 'other like
things' - but with many material things; eg, a fish reacts to water,
to water temperature, to chemicals in the water, to bacterium,
....etc. Again, where I am dithering is my view that that 'internal
sign' cannot even be that 'internal sign' unless it is networked to
the external
reality.---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2]ET: As Peirce said - protoplasm feels. If I use as an example, a
plant, then feeling would be its 'awakening' to the warmth of the sun.
Action is of course its actions of intake of water and nutrients,
production of flowers....and thought is its adaptive actions.
Thanks, I need to think through these and other examples. In
addition, how do we properly attribute feeling, action, and thought
to the non-living physico-chemical realm?
EDWINA: My thoughts on the modal categories in the physic-chemical
realm would be that feeling is akin to the acknowledgement of one
chemical to another chemical; just the acknowledgement of a molecule
of hydrogen to a molecule of oxygen. Action is the reaction of
acceptance [or rejection] of both molecules to each other. Thought is
the habits of the chemical interaction that bonds them into the larger
Water
Molecule.------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------
3] ET: I agree with the above - and each triad is distinct -
otherwise, not only would one not be able to pick out the particular
combinations but, the 'subject' would be unable to interact. The end
of distinctness is the withdrawal from semiosis - i.e., the death of
the subject.
Could you please elaborate on that last statement? I want to be
sure that I understand what you mean by "distinctness" and
"withdrawal" in this context, as well as "death" since I was thinking
that semeiosis is not limited to living things. Or do you just mean
"death" in Peirce's sense of "the complete induration of habit" at
the end of the universe?
EDWINA: It has some comparison ...but..- I don't mean death in the
Peircean sense of the 'complete induration of habit which is where
the laws swallow all ability to instantiate those laws. That would
only happen if the asymmetry between the laws and their
instantiations disappeared. That would only happen if one finally
reached the Truth, the ultimate Final Interpretant.
But what happens when an instantiation is isolated from interaction
with other instances? This is what I am talking about. A cell that has
only itself, isolate from all other cells - will die and decompose.
The fact that the cell includes 'habits' of its formation won't help
keep it alive; it MUST interact with the external envt or it will
decompose. How stable is a single isolate
molecule?--------------------------------------------------------------
4) ET: Yes - the above is a good model - my only quibble is what I
see as the necessity for that Internal Sign entity, so to speak, of
engaging with a Dynamic Object and possibly expressing a Dynamic
Interpretant. My point is that I don't see how a Sign, operative
only within its internal semiosic actions, can exist - as a Sign.
I hope it is clear by now that I agree with you on all of this.
Your concern, as I understand it, is that if we only use the term
"Sign" for the internal triad (Oi-R-Ii), someone might be misled into
thinking that a Sign in this sense can "exist" in isolation from
everything else. My concern is actually similar--if we also use the
term "Sign" for the external triadic relation (Od-S-Id), someone might
still be misled into thinking that a Sign in this sense can "exist"
in isolation from everything else. Furthermore, I see a lot of
value--besides just more closely matching Peirce's typical usage--in
carefully distinguishing between the possible/internal and
actual/external aspects of the Sign. In particular, I think that we
can more successfully maintain the inescapable interconnectedness of
all Signs if we limit that label to the (internal) Oi-R-Ii triad
while emphasizing that the (external) Od and Id are always necessary
and possible, respectively.
EDWINA: Yes - I agree; there is a great deal of value in
differentiating the internal and external. And yes - the external OD
is necessary, absolutely necessary - and the external ID - is
possible but not necessary.
--------------------------------------------------------------
5) ET: But again - I do see the value of your model, for it enables
multiple and diverse connections with different Dynamic Objects and
multiple and diverse expressions of Dynamic Interpretants. ...while
maintaining a certain stability-in-itself - which would prevent pure
randomness. That is, a cell would be able to change - only up to a
certain level, because its capacity for reacting to a DO and
expressing a DI - are constrained by its basic internal system.
Exactly! I think that my proposed adjustment to your model also
conforms better to how we "count" signs, as Short put it. The same
Dynamic Object can determine multiple Signs, and the same Sign can
determine multiple Dynamic Interpretants. However, any two Signs
that have the same Immediate Object and Immediate Intepretant are
really the same Sign.
EDWINA: Agreed. I see the value of the basic Sign as made up of that
internal triad BUT - necessary related to a Dynamic Object - or indeed
- multiple and different Dynamic Objects - which enables that basic
Sign to be flexible in its Interpretants and its power-of-adaptation.
So what do you think--can we agree that going forward, we will only
use "Sign" for the Oi-R-Ii triad, but always stress the necessity of
Od and possibility of Id as the other two correlates in a triadic
relation with any such Sign?
EDWINA - yes - incredible - but we do agree, and I think that this
model - that basic internal triad, but necessarily related to an
external Dynamic Objects or indeed to multiple Dynamic Objects -
gives the internal triad a tremendous flexibility and adaptive
capacity. Just what I've been looking for!
Regards,
Jon
On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 8:04 AM, Edwina Taborsky wrote:
Jon, list - see my comments below:
-- 1] ET: I think we have, remaining, ONE 'difference', which is in
point 4 below.
That is what I anticipated, but I thought it was important to
confirm it so that we are not surprised if and when it comes up again
in the future.
ET: I don't think that the Sign is only an INTERNAL triad. There
has to be, in my view, a triadic networking going on outside of this
internal one.
This is basically the same sticking point as #4, right? I am now on
board with conceiving the Sign as a triad consisting of the
Representamen, Immediate Object, and Immediate Interpretant, since
Peirce described the Oi and Ii as "internal to" or "within" the Sign.
I also agree that there is, always and everywhere, "triadic
networking" of the Sign with the Dynamic Object and (when it has one)
the Dynamic Interpretant. However, since Peirce described the Od and
Id as "external to" or "without" the Sign, and the Od as "independent
of" the Sign, I remain uncomfortable with also calling this a triad,
and especially with calling this the Sign. I would personally prefer
to stick with Peirce's terminology, in which S, Od, and Id are three
correlates (i.e., subjects) of a triadic relation; and I honestly
believe that this still captures the idea of ubiquitous "triadic
networking" that you rightly insist on maintaining. More below.
EDWINA: I agree with the above outline - except, again, for my
concern over confining the Sign-as-a-triad to its internal
composition. I'm thinking of, for example, a paramecium. Is it, as an
existential reality, confined only to its internal composition or is
it necessarily existential only because it is semiosically connected
to external information
processes?-------------------------------------------------
2] ET: IF, for example, the Immediate Interpretant is in a mode of
Firstness, then, the other two Interpretants must be in the same
mode, i.e., they can't add information.
Right, if a Sign is only "interpretable" by a feeling--i.e., that is
its only possible effect--then obviously any actual effect of that
Sign will be a feeling, as well as any resulting habit. On the other
hand, if a Sign is interpretable by a thought, then it is also
interpretable by an action or a feeling; so its actual effects and
resulting habits may be any of these. Again, I am interested in
learning what might correspond in the physico-chemical and biological
realms to feeling, action, and thought in the human realm as the three
kinds of effects that a Sign can produce.
EDWINA: As Peirce said - protoplasm feels. If I use as an example, a
plant, then feeling would be its 'awakening' to the warmth of the sun.
Action is of course its actions of intake of water and nutrients,
production of flowers....and thought is its adaptive
actions.------------------------------
3] ET: I understand your saying that this INTERNAL triad is the
first correlate - and the DO as the second correlate and the DI as
the third correlate. I understand what you are setting up - but my
view is that the semiosic action cannot allow distinct subjects. That
is, there is nothing on this planet that exists, as I see it, outside
of the semiosic 'network' so to speak.
I wonder if at this point our remaining disagreement is mostly a
modeling issue. I can absolutely endorse your last statement here,
while still maintaining that there are distinct subjects. After all,
in order for there to be real relations, there must be real subjects
that are thus related--and that is precisely what I take Peirce to
mean by "correlates." Calling them "distinct" does not entail that
they are "separate," as I wrongly said a while back, let alone
"isolated" such that they somehow "exist outside of semiosis." Even
in your current model, each individual triad is "distinct" (or at
least distinguishable) from the others, despite being integrally
networked with them; otherwise, you would not be able to pick out
particular combinations of Representamen, Object, and Interpretant as
examples.
EDWINA: I agree with the above - and each triad is distinct -
otherwise, not only would one not be able to pick out the particular
combinations but, the 'subject' would be unable to interact. The end
of distinctness is the withdrawal from semiosis - i.e., the death of
the
subject.------------------------------------------------------------
What I am basically suggesting is that we make the model a bit more
granular, in a way that I believe is more consistent with Peirce's
own model. We would use "Sign" to refer only to the triad of
Representamen, Immediate Object, and Immediate Interpretant. We
would say that every such Sign is the first correlate of a triadic
relation, and that its Dynamic Object (which determines it) and its
Dynamic Interpretant (which it determines) are the other two
correlates. We would recognize that these three subjects are
embedded within a comprehensive network of further relations with
other subjects, all of which can play any of the three roles--Sign,
Dynamic Object, or Dynamic Interpretant; i.e., "all this universe is
perfused with signs, if not composed exclusively of signs" (CP
5.448n1; 1905).
I certainly do not expect you to change your mind immediately, but I
hope that you will think about it.
EDWINA: Yes - the above is a good model - my only quibble is what I
see as the necessity for that Internal Sign entity, so to speak, of
engaging with a Dynamic Object and possibly expressing a Dynamic
Interpretant. My point is that I don't see how a Sign, operative
only within its internal semiosic actions, can exist - as a Sign. But
again - I do see the value of your model, for it enables multiple and
diverse connections with different Dynamic Objects and multiple and
diverse expressions of Dynamic Interpretants. ...while maintaining a
certain stability-in-itself - which would prevent pure randomness.
That is, a cell would be able to change - only up to a certain level,
because its capacity for reacting to a DO and expressing a DI - are
constrained by its basic internal system.
Edwina
Thanks,
Jon
On Sun, Apr 2, 2017 at 7:30 AM, Edwina Taborsky wrote:
See my comments below - and yes, I think we are making progress in
understanding each other's views better. I think we have, remaining,
ONE 'difference', which is in point 4 below.
--
On Sat 01/04/17 4:52 PM , Jon Alan Schmidt jonalanschm...@gmail.com
sent:
Edwina, List:
It is very gratifying to make so much progress in (finally)
understanding each other better. I am sincerely sorry that we were
not able to get to this point sooner.
1) ET: I don't think I'm ready to reduce the Immediate Interpretant
to a potentiality held within the Representamen although - I see your
point and it seems valid.
JAS: I did not mean to imply that the Immediate Interpretant is
"held within the Representamen"; rather, it is within the Sign, which
is a triad consisting of the Representamen, Immediate Object, and
Immediate Interpretant.
EDWINA: OK - I accept this triad but I'm going to consider it only
ONE triad. That is, I don't think that the Sign is only an INTERNAL
triad. There has to be, in my view, a triadic networking going on
outside of this internal one.-----------------------------------
2) ET: ... so my question is - as potential - is [the Immediate
Interpretant] always in a mode of Firstness? ... If the Immediate
Interpretant operates as potentiality - then - how can it be within
the other two modes?
It depends on what we mean by "mode." In my working hypothesis, the
Immediate, Dynamic, and Final Interpretants are indeed manifestations
of 1ns as possibility, 2ns as actuality, and 3ns as habituality,
respectively. However, each is still divisible into its own
trichotomy, which corresponds to 1ns as feeling, 2ns as action, and
3ns as thought. So the Immediate Interpretant is the range of
possible feelings (Ejaculative), actions (Imperative), or thoughts
(Significative) that the Sign may produce; the Dynamic Interpretant
is any actual feeling (Sympathetic/Congruentive), action
(Shocking/Percussive), or thought (Usual) that the Sign does produce;
and the Final Interpretant is a habit of feeling (Gratific), action
(To produce action), or thought (To produce self-control) that the
Sign would produce through repetition of various Dynamic
Interpretants. Every Sign has an Immediate Interpretant within
itself, but some Signs never produce a Dynamic Interpretant, and some
of those Signs never produce a Final Interpretant.
Once again, the terminology here seems more directly applicable to
Sign-action involving human minds, rather than the physico-chemical
and biological realms. I am open to suggestions for how to transfer
the concepts from one context to the other. I suspect that the key
is remembering that Peirce did not confine feeling, action, and
thought to humans--or even just to living things.
EDWINA: OK - I see what you have done, by dividing the three
Interpretants, effectively, into the 'range of possible'; the
actuality and the habit. You have, therefore, said that an ACT of
feeling is in a mode of Firstness - within the Dynamic Interpretant,
while a physical ACT....is in a mode of Secondness within that same
DI. I see your point. ..though I'm not sure about this - IF, for
example, the Immediate Interpretant is in a mode of Firstness, then,
the other two Interpretants must be in the same mode, i.e., they
can't add information. But I do see what you are doing and it makes
sense. -------------------------------------
3) ET: The Interpretant in a Rhematic Indexical Legisign [a
demonstrative pronoun] is in a mode of Firstness. It is, I think,
externalized by the modes of Secondness and Thirdness in the other
correlates. How does this fit in with your outline?
JAS: My understanding of Peirce's three-trichotomy, ten-Sign
classification--and what I have found to be the nearly unanimous
consensus in the secondary literature that I have read--is that the
third trichotomy does not divide the Interpretant itself, but the
relation between the Sign and its Interpretant; i.e., how the
Interpretant represents the Sign.
CSP: Signs are divisible by three trichotomies: first, according
as the sign in itself is a mere quality [Qualisign], is an actual
existent [Sinsign], or is a general law [Legisign]; secondly,
according as the relation of the sign to its Object consists in the
sign's having some character in itself [Icon], or in some existential
relation to that Object [Index], or in its relation to an Interpretant
[Symbol]; thirdly, according as its Interpretant represents it as a
sign of possibility [Rheme], or as a sign of fact [Dicent], or as a
sign of reason [Argument]. (EP 2:291-292; 1903)
JAS: Hence a Rhematic Indexical Legisign is a Sign that is a general
law, which is in some existential relation to its Object, and which is
represented by its Interpretant as a sign of possibility. A
demonstrative pronoun, such as "this" or "that," is a Legisign
because it is applicable to a wide variety of situations, rather than
being tied to one particular Object; but whenever it is actually
uttered, that replica is a Sinsign. It is an Index because it only
has an Object by virtue of collateral experience that draws attention
to that Object, such as the utterer pointing at it. It is a Rheme
because its Interpretant includes no information about its Object.
EDWINA: Good
explanation.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4) JAS: The possible modes of the Interpretant itself depend on
where we insert that trichotomy among the first three--which is
something that Peirce never clearly specified, with the result that
it has been a topic of considerable debate over the years, on this
List and elsewhere. I would suggest that it must come after the
Sign, since the Sign determines the Interpretant; and it must come
before the Sign-Interpretant relation, such that the two correlates
determine the relation. In my working hypothesis, if it comes
before the Sign-Object relation, then the Interpretant must be either
an action (2ns) or a thought (3ns); and if it comes after the
Sign-Object relation, then the Interpretant must be either a feeling
(1ns) or an action (2ns). Hence it is a matter of which we find more
plausible--that the Interpretant of a Rhematic Indexical Legisign can
be a thought, or that it can be a feeling.
ET: Yes - I can accept 'Sign as Triad and Correlate of Triadic
Relation'. Good heavens - we are agreeing - and it's real, not a
factor of April 1st!
Indeed, no fooling on my part, either. Just to be clear,
though--what I am proposing is that the Sign is a triad consisting of
the Representamen, Immediate Object, and Immediate Interpretant; and
that this triad is the first correlate of a triadic relation, with
the Dynamic Object as the second correlate and the Dynamic
Interpretant as the third correlate. In other words, the Sign,
Dynamic Object, and Dynamic Interpretant are distinct subjects,
rather than parts of a triad. Is this an acceptable formulation, or
still a sticking point?
EDWINA: I think, unfortunately, this is still a sticking point. My
reason for quibbling is because you are defining and confining the
triadic Sign as strictly INTERNAL. That's what bothers me. I
understand your saying that this INTERNAL triad is the first
correlate - and the DO as the second correlate and the DI as the
third correlate. I understand what you are setting up - but my view
is that the semiosic action cannot allow distinct subjects. That is,
there is nothing on this planet that exists, as I see it, outside of
the semiosic 'network' so to speak. So, my problem is that you seem
to be confining semiosis to an INTERNAL interaction.
Think of a spider's web. Outside of this web, is a fly. It's even
far away. It is an objective reality. It is NOT a Dynamic Object in
this particular situation ...until..it is trapped on that web. THEN,
it is a Dynamic Object in this particular situation and becomes an
Immediate Object when it is accepted as 'possible food' by the
Spider.
BUT - I'll say that the fly is ALWAYS in a semiosic triad - which
includes its being a Dynamic Object in THIS particular spider's web
experience...but it's also in other semiosic triads where it is a DO,
or a DI..[and a representamen and..] ..The mere fact that it is a
particular fly makes it also a Dynamic Interpretant of the
biological 'genes' that make up flies. ...and this is quite separate
from its role on the spider's web. It is a Dynamic Object in the huge
ecosystem of a particular swamp.
The way you seem to be setting up the semiosic process - leaves the
'things' or flies in this case, in a non-semiosic lifestyle...UNTIL
they are trapped on that web, so to speak. That's what bothers me. I
don't see how any 'thing' can exist outside of semiosis.
Edwina
On Sat, Apr 1, 2017 at 1:19 PM, Edwina Taborsky wrote:
Jon, list -
OK - I'll take each point.
1)You write: " I would suggest that an Immediate Interpretant is
never an actual interpretant that a Sign produces, but rather a range
of possible interpretants that a Sign may produce. In other words,
the Immediate Interpretant is the Sign's capacity to produce an
actual interpretant--i.e., a Dynamic Interpretant."
EDWINA: Hmm. I'd have to think about this. I agree that it is never
an actual interpretant. I don't think I'm ready to reduce the
Immediate Interpretant to a potentiality held within the
Representamen although - I see your point and it seems valid.
. I accept the notion of the representamen's capacity to produce an
actual interpretant, the DI, - but the way you are setting it up,
the Immediate Interpretant - which I acknowledge has no actual
existentiality [for that would require that it be external and have
some links to a mode of Secondness]....remains purely potential -
i.e., so my question is - as potential - is it always in a mode of
Firstness?
Your suggestion of potentiality would fit in with Peirce's outline
in 8.314, where he writes that "The Immediate Interpretant is what
the Question expresses, all that it immediately expresses' [the
question was the Object]. This would suggest that the Immediate
Interpretant is closely linked to the Object.
Again, he writes: "The Immediate Interpretant consists in the
Quality of the Impression that a sign is fit to produce, not to any
actual reaction" 8.315. And he further refers to the Immediate
Interpretant as in a "mode of Presentation' 8.344 - i.e., not in a
Mode of Being or actuality.
Then, he describes the Immediate Interpretant as 'felt' 8.369 - and
acknowledges that it can be in any of the three modes: 'ejaculative
or merely giving utterance to feeling; imperative, including of
course, Interrogative; Significative. ". So - my question is: If the
Immediate Interpretant operates as potentiality - then - how can it be
within the other two modes?
Or would - these three modes be within the Relation that the
Representamen has in determining the Immediate Interpretant . In
other words - this would agree with your analysis.
But is this the case? The Interpretant - - in a Rhematic Indexical
Legisign [a demonstrative pronoun] is in a mode of Firstness. It is,
I think, externalized by the modes of Secondness and Thirdness in the
other correlates. How does this fit in with your outline?
Again - your analysis makes sense - but I'll have to think about it.
2) I think that we are merely quibbling over the word 'determines' -
which still has a whiff of authority to it, which I am aware was not
what Peirce meant. Otherwise - I agree with your outline.
3) Yes - I can accept 'Sign as Triad and Correlate of Triadic
Relation'. Good heavens - we are agreeing - and it's real, not a
factor of April 1st!
Edwina
--
This message is virus free, protected by Primus - Canada's
largest alternative telecommunications provider.
http://www.primus.ca [2]
On Sat 01/04/17 1:46 PM , Jon Alan Schmidt jonalanschm...@gmail.com
sent:
Edwina, List:
I really appreciate this discussion, which has been very
enlightening. This time I am the one with a couple of quibbles,
which I hope will prove to be minor.
ET: And yes, I DO fully agree with your comment that the
sign/representamen must have the capacity to produce an Immediate
Interpretant - even if it does not do so, at this moment in time.
I would suggest that an Immediate Interpretant is never an actual
interpretant that a Sign produces, but rather a range of possible
interpretants that a Sign may produce. In other words, the Immediate
Interpretant is the Sign's capacity to produce an actual
interpretant--i.e., a Dynamic Interpretant. Furthermore, the
Immediate Object and Immediate Interpretant are internal to the
Sign--i.e., the Sign itself is a triad consisting of the
Representamen, Immediate Object, and Immediate Interpretant. I
suspect that this is precisely why Peirce's late 66-Sign
classification did not include the S-Oi or S-Ii relations as
distinct trichotomies.
ET: The Form or Dynamic Object is 'independent of the Sign' - but
only in its nature as an Object. As soon as it interacts with the
Sign-vehicle, then, it becomes a Dynamic Object and as such - it is
in a relationship with the sign. Before that - it is simply an
external Object.
I would suggest that the Dynamic Object determines the Sign, rather
than merely interacting with it. In other words, the Dynamic Object
is independent of the Sign in a certain sense, but the Sign is not
independent of the Dynamic Object in the same way; and similarly, the
Sign is independent of the Dynamic Interpretant in a certain sense (as
discussed above), but the Dynamic Interpretant is not independent of
the Sign in the same way. I suspect that this is precisely why
Peirce's late 66-sign classification did include the S-Od and S-Id
relations as distinct trichotomies.
ET: But then, since I also subscribe to a view that nothing at all
exists independently 'per se' and outside of networked semiosic
connections, then, if one follows this view through....it would
conclude that there is no such thing as a separate Object. All
'things' are in interaction with something else ...
Right, "separate" was too strong a word on my part; I agree that
every "thing" has real relations with other "things." The Dynamic
Object has a peculiar kind of relation with the Sign, which has a
peculiar kind of relation with the Dynamic Interpretant. However, I
would suggest that these are still relations that the Sign has with
two external "things," not relations that are somehow internal to
the Sign itself--i.e., the Sign (R-Oi-Ii), Dynamic Object, and
Dynamic Interpretant are the three correlates of a single triadic
relation, rather than the three components of a single triad.
I guess I should have made the thread title "Sign as Triad AND
Correlate of Triadic Relation," because that is the view on which I
seem to be settling now. Again, what do you think?
Thanks,
Jon
On Sat, Apr 1, 2017 at 7:22 AM, Edwina Taborsky wrote:
Jon, list - yes, there's a lot of agreement in our views.
So, first, the Sign must have a Dynamic Object- at some time in its
experience. For example, that could be some chemical trigger that
does not affect the body for years, that is dormant internally as an
Immediate Object for years before moving into the Interpretant phase.
And yes, I DO fully agree with your comment that the
sign/representamen must have the capacity to produce an Immediate
Interpretant - even if it does not do so, at this moment in time.
And I would agree that the internal triad is thus basic - and the
external parts could be called correlates - and are not necessarily
found at the same time. Again, I refer to that chemical affecting the
body which might take years to have a real effect.
The Form or Dynamic Object is 'independent of the Sign' - but only
in its nature as an Object. As soon as it interacts with the
Sign-vehicle, then, it becomes a Dynamic Object and as such - it is
in a relationship with the sign. Before that - it is simply an
external Object. That is, that chemical that affects the human or the
tree...is only a Dynamic Object when it actually interacts with that
human or that tree.
But then, since I also subscribe to a view that nothing at all
exists independently 'per se' and outside of networked semiosic
connections, then, if one follows this view through....it would
conclude that there is no such thing as a separate Object. All
'things' are in interaction with something else - even if it's merely
one grain of sand in interaction with the water flowing over it. That
chemical might not be a Dynamic Object to the human body but it is
such with something else - let's say with the water.
Edwina
--
This message is virus free, protected by Primus - Canada's
largest alternative telecommunications provider.
http://www.primus.ca [3]
On Fri 31/03/17 11:46 PM , Jon Alan Schmidt jonalanschm...@gmail.com
sent:
Edwina, List:
No problem, it was a long shot but worth a try. In fact, your
points about the two Objects are well-taken; and that is the part of
my hypothesis that feels the most speculative, since what I quoted
from Peirce and Short does not say anything about them. After all,
the Dynamic Object determines the Sign/Representamen; so if there is
no Dynamic Object, how can there be a Sign at all? So I think that
we are actually on the same page there.
We also apparently agree that a Sign can have an Immediate
Interpretant without also having a Dynamic Interpretant. You went on
to suggest that it might be possible for a Sign to have no
Interpretant at all; but if the Immediate Interpretant is defined as
a range of possibilities (as we previously agreed), then that would
be a Sign that is incapable of determining an Interpretant--and
again, if that is the case, how can it be a Sign at all?
That just leaves the fundamental issue of the thread title still
unresolved, and I am not quite ready to give up yet. We now agree
that the Sign is a triad in the sense that the Immediate Object and
Immediate Interpretant are internal to it. What remains is whether
the Dynamic Object and the Dynamic Interpretant are also parts of the
Sign as a single triad, or distinct correlates of a triadic relation.
It seems to me that if there can be a Sign without a Dynamic
Interpretant, then the latter cannot be an essential part of the
former; they must be distinct in some way. Furthermore, Peirce
carefully chose the adjective "dynamic" (sometimes "dynamical" or
"dynamoid") because of the indexical and reactive nature of the
Object and Interpretant that he explicitly characterized as external
to the Sign.
CSP: It is usual and proper to distinguish two Objects of a Sign,
the Mediate without, and the Immediate within the Sign. Its
Interpretant is all that the Sign conveys: acquaintance with its
Object must be gained by collateral experience. The Mediate Object
is the Object outside of the Sign; I call it the Dynamoid Object. (EP
2:480; 1908)
CSP: We must distinguish between the Immediate Object,--i.e., the
Object as represented in the Sign,--and ... the Dynamical Object,
which, from the nature of things, the Sign cannot express, which it
can only indicate and leave the interpreter to find out by collateral
experience. (EP 2:498; 1909)
CSP: The Dynamical Interpretant is whatever interpretation any mind
actually makes of a sign. This Interpretant derives its character
from the Dyadic category, the category of Action ... the meaning of
any sign for anybody consists in the way he reacts to the sign. (EP
2:499; 1909)
Now, Peirce is evidently talking mainly about Sign-action involving
human minds here, rather than the physico-chemical and biological
Sign-action that is of primary interest to you. So the question
becomes how to transfer the concepts from one context to the other.
I think that Peirce himself may have been trying to point the way in
two additional passages.
CSP: I use the word "Sign" in the widest sense for any medium for
the communication or extension of a Form (or feature). Being medium,
it is determined by something, called its Object, and determines
something, called its Interpretant or Interpretand ... In order that
a Form may be extended or communicated, it is necessary that it
should have been really embodied in a Subject independently of the
communication; and it is necessary that there should be another
Subject in which the same Form is embodied only in consequence of the
communication. The Form (and the Form is the Object of the Sign), as
it really determines the former Subject, is quite independent of the
sign ... (EP 2:477; 1906)
To me, this is saying that both the (Dynamic) Object and (Dynamic)
Interpretant are distinct Subjects that are independent of the Sign,
which causes the same Form that was previously embodied in the former
to become embodied in the latter.
CSP: I define a Sign as anything which is so determined by
something else, called its Object, and so determines an effect upon a
person, which effect I call its Interpretant, that the latter is
thereby mediately determined by the former. My insertion of "upon a
person" is a sop to Cerberus, because I despair of making my own
broader conception understood. (EP 2:478; 1908)
Here the Object is "something else" than the Sign, while the
Interpretant is the "effect" of the Sign; so again, it strikes me as
saying that they are separate. Of course, this is also the most
famous quote demonstrating that Peirce intended his model of
Sign-action to have very broad application.
This has gotten a bit long, so I will stop there for now, and ask
one more time--what do you think?
Thanks,
Jon
On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 6:05 PM, Edwina Taborsky wrote:
Oh dear - it was certainly nice while it lasted. I'm going to
disagree with your suggestion that there could be a Representamen
without an external Dynamic Object...at some point in its experience.
That is, I don't see the Representamen - or any of the triad - as
'standing alone'. Peirce DOES, after all, define the Representamen as
'the first correlate of a triadic relation'. A Representamen, in my
understanding, acts as mediation and how can such an action exist -
except within mediation or interaction with something else?
Equally, I can't see that the INTERNAL object, i.e., the
Immediate Object could exist without the iconic or indexical or
symbolic stimuli of an external Dynamic Object. I can, however,
accept that there might be only an internal Immediate Interpretant
which never makes it to the externality of being a Dynamic
Interpretant. And it is still possible that the Representamen might
be functioning only within the stimulation of a Dynamic
Object-Immediate Object and does not actually produce even an
Immediate Interpretant.
And I see your image of a triad made up of the Internal aspects of
the Object-Interpretant, I,e, the Immediate
Object-Representamen-Immediate interpretant, but, I still consider
that the real genuine triad has to have that externality.
Edwina
--
This message is virus free, protected by Primus - Canada's
largest alternative telecommunications provider.
http://www.primus.ca [4]
On Fri 31/03/17 5:29 PM , Jon Alan Schmidt jonalanschm...@gmail.com
sent:
Edwina, List:
At the risk of pressing our luck, since we have already unexpectedly
identified at least two points of agreement today, I would like to
revisit (selectively) some comments that I posted yesterday.
CSP: A Representamen is the First Correlate of a triadic relation,
the Second Correlate being termed its Object, and the possible Third
Correlate being termed its Interpretant, by which triadic relation
the possible Interpretant is determined to be the First Correlate of
the same triadic relation to the same Object, and for some possible
Interpretant. (EP 2:290, emphases in original; 1903)
Notice that Peirce twice characterized the Interpretant as
"possible"; here is a second passage that touches on that.
CSP: Namely, while no Representamen actually functions as such
until it actually determines an Interpretant, yet it becomes a
Representamen as soon as it is fully capable of doing this; and its
Representative Quality is not necessarily dependent upon its ever
actually determining an Interpretant, nor even upon its actually
having an Object. (CP 2.275, emphases added; c. 1902)
My understanding is thus that every Sign/Representamen has an
Immediate Object and determines an Immediate Interpretant, because
those are real possibilities that are internal to it; but evidently
there might be such a thing as a Sign/Representamen that has no
Dynamic Object and/or (especially) determines no Dynamic
Interpretant, because those are external to it. I wonder if
recognizing these distinctions--possible vs. actual, and internal vs.
external--could be a way to reconcile "the Sign as triad" (with
Immediate Object/Interpretant) and "the Sign as one correlate of a
triadic relation" (with Dynamic Object/Interpretant).
What do you think?
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USAProfessional Engineer, Amateur
Philosopher, Lutheran Layman www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt [5] -
twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt [6]
Links:
------
[1]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'tabor...@primus.ca\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
[2] http://www.primus.ca
[3] http://www.primus.ca
[4] http://www.primus.ca
[5] http://www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt
[6] http://twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
-----------------------------
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 .
