| “No longer wondered what I would do in life but defined my object.” | | — C.S. Peirce (1861), “My Life, written for the Class-Book”, (CE 1, 3) | https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2016/03/16/abduction-deduction-induction-analogy-inquiry-17/
| The object of reasoning is to find out, | from the consideration of what we already know, | something else which we do not know. | http://www.peirce.org/writings/p107.html If the object of an investigation is to find out something we did not know then the clues and evidence discovered are the signs that determine that object. We've been through this so many times before that I hesitate ... but what the hecuba ... one more time for good measure ... People will continue to be confused about determination so long as they can think of no other forms of it but the behaviorist-causal-dyadic-temporal, object-as-stimulus and sign-as-response variety. It is true that ordinary language biases us toward billiard-ball styles of dyadic determination, but there are triadic forms of constraint, determination, and interaction that are not captured by S-R chains of that order. A pragmatic-semiotic object is anything we talk or think about, and semiosis does not conduct its transactions within the bounds of object as cue, sign as cue ball, and interpretants as solids, stripes, or pockets. Regards, Jon -- inquiry into inquiry: https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/ academia: https://independent.academia.edu/JonAwbrey oeiswiki: https://www.oeis.org/wiki/User:Jon_Awbrey isw: http://intersci.ss.uci.edu/wiki/index.php/JLA facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/JonnyCache
----------------------------- 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 .
