Gary R., List: Thank you for your characteristically thoughtful and thought-provoking response. Up until now, I have been considering all of this with the mindset that the child's scream must be analyzed as *one *Sign. Upon reflection, I realize that such an approach fails to take proper account of the nature of a *genuine *Sign as "something that exists in replicas" (EP 2:411; 1904). What you seem to be suggesting--please correct me if I am misunderstanding--is that the same "thing" can be a Replica of *more than one* Sign.
In this case, as Gary F. observed, the girl's scream is, for her, "primarily a natural sign," or what I have started calling a *degenerate *Sign--an instinctive physical reflex, rather than an intentional "utterance"--such that all six Correlates are Existents (2ns). As such, I get the sense that many of the steps in the *internal *chain of events, from the contact of the child's finger with the hot burner to the propagation of sound waves from her vocal chords--including both of those phenomena themselves--could conceivably be analyzed as *dynamical*, rather than *semiosic*. Why should we treat the girl's scream as the Dynamic Interpretant of a particular neural pattern within her that represents the hot burner, rather than as merely the last in a series of strictly dyadic causes and effects? If she effectively *cannot help* but scream, is this really an example of Sign-action at all? The same questions arise regarding the flight of a bird upon hearing a loud sound. I have some vague notions of possible answers, but I am hoping that you (or someone else) can provide a clear explanation. For the mother, on the other hand, the scream does not produce any kind of *deterministic *response. Although it probably triggers certain "motherly instincts," she rushes into the kitchen *deliberately*; presumably she *could *ignore the child if she were so inclined, as a neglectful parent might be. From her standpoint, the child is the *utterer* of the Sign that is the scream, even if *unintentionally*; and therefore, the girl is indeed where we must "look" to "find" the Sign's Dynamic Object, "the essential ingredient of the utterer" (EP 2:404; 1907). However, I am still not convinced that it is the child *herself*; typically when a Sign *has *an utterer, the Dynamic Object is *not *that utterer, but whatever the utterer (as the saying goes) *has in mind* upon uttering the Sign--in this case, perhaps the *pain *that the girl is sensing. The Immediate Object is then the combination of attributes of *this particular scream* that the mother's Collateral Experience leads her to associate with previous *screams of pain or distress* that she has heard, both from this child and from others, which likely differentiates them somehow from *other kinds* of childish screams. This, then, takes us back to my first paragraph above. For the mother, the girl's scream is a *Replica*--a Token of a Type--which it obviously *cannot *be for the child. The Dynamic Object of the corresponding *genuine *Sign is presumably something like *pain or distress in general*. Hence the context-dependence of any *concrete *instance of *actual *semiosis--necessarily involving Replicas--is quite evident here. Does any of this make sense? To be honest, it all still feels highly conjectural to me, so I am expecting (hopefully constructive) criticism. In fact, I can already anticipate that Edwina will reject it right away--understandably, given her very different model of semiosis--but I am eager to see what you and others have to say. Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 6:12 PM, Gary Richmond <gary.richm...@gmail.com> wrote: > Jon, Edwina, list, > > Jon, while I am tending to agree with you on much of your analysis, I > still can't agree with you in the matter of the Dynamic Object for the > mother. You wrote: > > JAS: In this case, I am wary of drawing a sharp distinction between "the > child's semiosis" and "the mother's semiosis"; are they not continuous? > > I do not see the semioses as continuous which is not to say that there is > no continuity. There's a continuity of communication, shall we say, but the > dynamic object of each person's semiosis is different in my opinion. > > The mother's semiosis at that moment of its occurrence seems to me not > determined by the oven at all, but by her daughter. So in my view the > Immediate Object of the mother concerns the oven not at all. Rather it is > grounded (in Peirce's sense of the ground of a sign, which he later terms > the immediate object: 'selected' characters of the DO) in the child > herself.Again, the ground of he semiosis cannot be the child in the > entirety of all her characters (an impossibility), but exactly those which > are predominant, her scream, perhaps the look on her face, etc. So, again, > as I see it the Dynamic Object for the mother is the child, while those > several characters which form the ground of her semiosis (equivalent to her > immediate object) contribute to a wholly different IO-R-II-DI, and so a > different Sign, than her daughter's, again, the consequence of their having > *entirely > different* Dynamic Objects. > > Edwina, while my understanding of the semioses involved here seems closer > to yours than to Jon's, I do not agree that the child's scream in the DO. > For just as the DO was the oven, while the heat (a character) from the > flaming burners led to the child's pain (a character) that grounded her > semiosis, it was the child as DO whose scream (a character for her mother) > grounded her mother's semiosis. > > Jon continued: > > JAS: It seems to me that there must be some semiotic connection between > the hot burner and the mother's eventual response to the child's cry, > because the one would not have happened without the other. > > Well this kind of thinking would, I believe, lead to an infinite regress > going as far back as the child's conception, and probably much further back > than that. It seems to me a kind of post hoc, propter hoc version of that > regress. What you point to ("the one would not have happened without the > other") seems to me more like physical than semiotic determination. > > JAS: Why regard the girl's scream as having a different Dynamic Object for > the mother than it does for the child? Is it not the very same Sign? > > I do not *at al*l see it as "the very same Sign." In my view there are > two signs, not, however, unrelated, and even intimately connected by the DI > of the child leading to the IO of the mother: but still *two distinct > signs*(at least) Here I think Edwina and I may be in at least partial > agreement. > > So, I think I already offered a reason in my earlier post as to why I > think our views are so different GR: ". . . in my understanding the > interpretant standing "in the same relation to the Sign's Dynamic Object as > the Sign itself does" doesn't apply to both signs, but to the child's > sign and* not *to the mother's (as you've been analyzing the semioses). > > The remainer of your analysis follows from your viewpoint which, as I see > it, goes well beyond the example into habit-change and the like which will > in my view necessarily involve more time, more semiosis, additional signs, > etc. than the discrete analysis put forth here. This is not to suggest that > the habits of the mother and the daughter will not lead to perhaps > life-changing habit change. But you yourself have noted that these will be > very different habits: not touching flames in the future for the child; not > leaving the child alone in the kitchen in the future for the mother. Again, > this stark difference in habit-change strongly suggests to me two different > signs, not one. > > Best, > > Gary R > > [image: Gary Richmond] > > *Gary Richmond* > *Philosophy and Critical Thinking* > *Communication Studies* > *LaGuardia College of the City University of New York* > *718 482-5690 <(718)%20482-5690>* >
----------------------------- 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 .