JAS, List,
What is the dynamical object of a lexical item like man or homme. Men in general I suppose. With regard to actual semiotic processes I agree with you that the dynamical object depends on the occasion, but then we don’t discus propositions or terms (lexical items), but utterances and communication processes. Best, Auke van Breemen Van: Jon Alan Schmidt <jonalanschm...@gmail.com> Verzonden: zaterdag 26 januari 2019 16:50 Aan: peirce-l@list.iupui.edu Onderwerp: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Signs, Types, Tokens, Instances Auke, List: What I am suggesting can be summarized as follows. * Every Token has a different Dynamic Object and Dynamic Interpretant--whatever it actually does denote and signify, respectively, on that particular occasion. * Every Type has a different Immediate Object and Immediate Interpretant--whatever it possibly could denote and signify, respectively, in accordance with the Sign System to which it belongs. * Every Sign has a different General Object and Final Interpretant--whatever it necessarily would denote and signify, respectively, after infinite inquiry by an infinite community; i.e., in the Ultimate Opinion. In other words, two individual Instances of the same Type always have different individual Dynamic Objects and different individual Dynamic Interpretants; while two different Types of the same Sign always have at least somewhat different Immediate Objects and Immediate Interpretants within their different Sign Systems. I am still pondering whether it is also possible for two Instances of the same Type to have different Immediate Interpretants, when they are accompanied by different Tones--font changes for emphasis, punctuation marks, voice inflections, etc.--or if those only affect their different Dynamic Interpretants. Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt <http://www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt> - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt <http://twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt> On Sat, Jan 26, 2019 at 7:32 AM Auke van Breemen <a.bree...@chello.nl <mailto:a.bree...@chello.nl> > wrote: JAS, List, We must not forget that a sign needs to be considered in the context of semiosis in actu if we want to become determinate as to which sign aspects take what value on each of the trichotomies. For only that what contributes to the result, i.e. the responding sign, takes part in the semiotic process we study (See Hulswit’s A semiotic account of causation.) With regard to the dynamical object the tokens ‘man’ and ‘homme’ both can be regarded as of the same type, just as the spoken and written forms of ‘there’ can be regarded as the same type, although this probably is not the rule. I agree that with regard to what the terms connote, respectively English, French language with man and homme and written, spoken form with ‘there’ they are definitely regarded as of different type. Best, Auke van Breemen
----------------------------- 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 .
