Semiotics seems to me almost a meta thing. A means of making academic what would be clear if not meta-ed up with interpretive elaboration and complexity. We live day by day and our time is necessarily limited. We encounter things and think about them and then act or express. If one wants to analyze this process fine but that is secondary to the actual process. If we are talking about pragmaticism are we not concerned mainly with the personal and public questions of the day? Most are. I think I have been unfair if this has been a discussion of semiotics and semiotics is a sort of in depth consideration which might be of interest to academics or people on vacation. Or is there a use for it, and of so what does it consist in? If we want to consider something like abortion today we cannot take lots of time and then come back to it. I that what the pragmatic maxim is about? I assume it is about a method of arriving at expressions and actions and that it is stages of a thought process. That it is explicable and works. But nobody except a few have honored my capacity for salient thought.
amazon.com/author/stephenrose On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 10:08 AM, Jon Alan Schmidt <jonalanschm...@gmail.com> wrote: > Mike, List: > > In one sense, I agree that it is simple--the Immediate Object is the > Object as it is represented in the Sign, while the Dynamic Object is the > Object as it really is. On the other hand, once we start trying to > identify these and other constituents within a concrete example of > semiosis--whether actual or imagined--it tends to get quite complicated, as > this thread amply illustrates. Consequently, my engagement with Peirce's > writings on speculative grammar usually involves formulating what I think > might be a viable framework, then testing it out with some examples, then > getting frustrated at the complexity that this eventually uncovers, then > giving up and moving on to something else. The cycle usually repeats a few > months later, perhaps focusing on a different aspect. One positive outcome > was my agreement with Edwina to use the term "Sign" for the *triad *of > Immediate Object, Representamen, and Immediate Interpretant, which is in an > irreducibly triadic *relation *with the Dynamic Object and Dynamic > Interpretant. I also wrestled with the three different Interpretants a few > times before settling on my current working hypothesis--the Immediate > Interpretant is the range of *possible* feelings/actions/thoughts that > the Sign *may *produce, the Dynamic Interpretant is any *actual > *feeling/action/thought > that the Sign *does *produce, and the Final Interpretant is the *habit *of > feeling/action/thought that the Sign *would *produce with sufficient > repetition. This has held up well so far, but I have yet to achieve > comparable clarity regarding the Dynamic Object and (especially) the > Immediate Object. > > Thanks, > > Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA > Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman > www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt > > On Wed, Jan 31, 2018 at 10:52 PM, Mike Bergman <m...@mkbergman.com> wrote: > >> Hi Jon, List, >> >> I know this thread has been going on for a while, and I have not followed >> every blow closely. So I apologize if I try to make something simple that >> in fact is not. But I guess I'm having a hard time seeing what is so >> confusing here. >> >> The immediate object is the object of a sign; it applies to all signs. It >> is what the sign is representing. If we are talking about the object being >> a flower, humans can see red; bees can see UV. Likely all representations >> we see of the flower (as humans) will render red, not UV. The red flower >> (plus many other aspects) is the immediate object. >> >> The dynamic object (also called real by Peirce, but he uses dynamic to >> capture the fictive case), is what the object actually is, UV, red, >> whatever. What it is is comprised of its entire breadth and depth of >> information, all of its extensions and its comprehension. Because it is >> real, this information of the dynamic object is independent of how I might >> perceive or signify it. The immediate object can never capture the complete >> information of the dynamic object, no matter how represented or signified. >> The analogy here is really no different than an information loss in >> Shannon's formulation. >> >> Having said what I said above, we now may have a better, bit more clearer >> understanding of the object. Our immediate object may change as a result, >> resulting in the occurrence of a new sign, part of the continuation of >> thought, but the dynamic object remains the same. >> >> At any rate, that is how I see it. >> >> Mike >> > > > ----------------------------- > 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 .
