Helmut, list I’m not quite sure if I understand your post - I don’t think that ‘habits’ [sleeping in memory?] are equivalent to Dynamicl Objects - and the Dynamical Object is always a part of the sign; ie, the DO doesn’t exist on its own outside of the semiosic interaction.
With reference to the Interpretant changing the nature of the Object, I’d agree -within the understanding of the reality of evolution. That is, - a disease, formerly reduced in its effects by an antibiotic, ….understood as O->reduction in effect, becomes, over time changed by those results [ reduction in effect] to become immune to the antibiotic. - a tree, attacked by insects [ Objects]….which reduces its capacity to live [Interpretant: by the reduction of the leaves]….develops internal chemicals in the leaves to thwart the insects [O]. But then, the insects develop new immunities to those chemicals! - a word [Object] — such as the word ‘virus’…. Changes its meaning over time… The point is - such changes in the nature of the functioning of the Object in the world [ disease, insects, words] can only take place if the sign vehicle [ the disease, the tree, the word] are functioning in a mode of Thirdness. And Thirdness is vital to the nature of the universe. Again, I stress the importance of the categories in the functioning of semiosis. Edwina > On Jan 8, 2024, at 10:19 AM, Helmut Raulien <h.raul...@gmx.de> wrote: > > Edwina, yes, I agree. Only the model I used is different: While you say, that > the representamen grows, I talk about old and new sign. Like the snow > situation is a continuous thing in reality, in the mind of the interpreter it > serves as a new sign again and again. If you say, the snow situation is the > representamen, ok, then it grows, but for me the appearance of the snow > situation in the interpreter´s mind is the representamen in either case of > noticing it. What grows in the interpreter´s mind, is the object of snow. > Whether that is the immediate or the dynamical object, is hard to decide for > me: At times of no sign, it still is in the interpreter´s memory: How to > handle the snow. But while this knowledge is sleeping in the memory, it is > not a part of any sign, so it is dynamical object, i would say. Anyway, it is > hard for me to distinguish between immediate and dynamical/real object: An > object part may be dynamical in the intentional or effectual interpretant, > but immediate in the cominterpretant, and sometimes it may be hard to know > the size of the commens, because, especially in the internet, nobody knows > who is taking part in a discourse. I know, that the flow of determination can > categorally not go upwards. The object determines the sign, the sign the > interpretant, and the interpretant changes the object, which is some sort of > determination too. And then I guess, as the interpretant serves as a new > sign, this sign is, besides by the old interpretant, also determined by the > now having changed object. This looks like a redundancy of course, but if the > object is changed in a larger context/commens, this change too determines the > sign of a smaller (sub-) commens, and in this case, this determination part > is not redundant with the information/determination carried by the > interpretant in the narrower commens. Like this, i think we might better see > the complexity of all this, and how signs interact via object change, if we > construct or tell more examples. In signs including physical action, there is > an energetic interpretant, and the object change is material as well. The > material part of the dynamical object then is easy to identify, as it is > spatially defined, it can be marked. But the conceptual part of the dynamical > object can not, that is why it is not always easy to exactly tell it from the > immediate object, i guess. > > Best, Helmut > > > Gesendet: Sonntag, 07. Januar 2024 um 19:28 Uhr > Von: "Edwina Taborsky" <tabor...@primus.ca> > An: "Helmut Raulien" <h.raul...@gmx.de> > Cc: "Peirce-L" <peirce-l@list.iupui.edu>, "Edwina Taborsky" > <edwina.tabor...@gmail.com> > Betreff: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Graphical Representations of the Sign by Peirce > Helmut - I think one has to be clear about terms. Do you mean that the > Interpretant [ which is a relation not a thing-in-itself] becomes a new triad > or only a new Representamen? > > My own view is that the Interpretant, which ‘holds and moulds’ information, > contributes to the formation of both a new triad [as, for example, when > nutrients from the food-as-object, contribute to the formation of the > cell-as a triadic Sign] ; when information about the weather [as object] > contributes to my Interpretant decision to shovel the snow…and I then, > remember in the future what to do when snow arrives.. > > That is, this interpretant would also enhance the knowledge content of the > Representamen if it were operating in its mode of Thirdness. That is, > Representamens in a mode of Thirdness grow in informational content. > > And that’s another reason why it’s difficult to create a visual diagram of > the semiosic process - those modalities - which are rarely discussed on this > site. > > But, just as we acknowledge the semiosic determinative process of > O-R-I…..and even > DO-IO-R-II-DI-FI. [and I’m assuming everyone knows what these letters > stand for…. > > We also have to acknowledge the modal restrictions, > It is obvious that a Possible cannot determine anything other than a > Possible, and likewise a Necessitant cannot be determined by anything other > than a Necessitant (letter to Lady Welby of December 23, 1908 ) > > Essentially this sets up restrictions on the development of the informational > nature of the triad. That is, an Object in a mode of 2ns cannot > determine/produce an Interpretant in a mode of 3ns. A Representamen in a mode > of 2ns cannot produce an Interpretant in a mode of 3ns. > > And it gets even more complex when you Bring in the concept of the genuine > and degenerate categorical modes. > > That is, as an example, there is only one of the ten classes where the > Interpretant is in a mode of Thirdness. One has to consider - are all three > Interpretants in this mode? But - are they all ‘genuine Thirdness or is there > any one of the three that is in a degenerate mode [3-1 or 3-2, ie, Thirdness > degenerate in the 2nd degree or first degree]? > BUT - we have to consider that one cannot move from Firstness to Secondness > to Thirdness! Even within another mode - ie, you cannot move from 3-1 to 3-2 > to 3-3 without an external ‘assistance from another sign input]. > > So- the universe is a complex system. > > Edwina > > > On Jan 7, 2024, at 8:56 AM, Helmut Raulien <h.raul...@gmx.de> wrote: > > Cecile, List, > > I think, the interconnection towards other signs takes place where the > interpretant serves as a new sign. Especially, if the commens (e.g. the > conversation) is not a closed one, like between two people, but includes some > publishing (like in this conversation), then the conceptual dynamical object > (the concept´s intension) is changed. Or with an energetic interpretant, then > even the physical properties of a material object can be changed. For any > sign in any other commens for which the change of object may play a role, the > interpretant can serve as a new sign, which, in relation with the object, > causes a new interpretant, which again may serve as a new sign in the > original semiosis (the spiral). > > Best, Helmut > > > _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ARISBE: THE PEIRCE GATEWAY is now at https://cspeirce.com > <https://cspeirce.com/> and, just as well, at https://www.cspeirce.com > <https://www.cspeirce.com/> . It'll take a while to repair / update all the > links! ► 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 UNSUBSCRIBE PEIRCE-L in the SUBJECT LINE of > the message and nothing in the body. More at > https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/help/user-signoff.html . ► PEIRCE-L is owned by > THE PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary Richmond; and co-managed by him and Ben > Udell. > _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ > ARISBE: THE PEIRCE GATEWAY is now at > https://cspeirce.com and, just as well, at > https://www.cspeirce.com . It'll take a while to repair / update all the > links! > ► 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 UNSUBSCRIBE PEIRCE-L in the SUBJECT LINE of the message and nothing in > the body. More at https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/help/user-signoff.html . > ► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary Richmond; and > co-managed by him and Ben Udell.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ARISBE: THE PEIRCE GATEWAY is now at https://cspeirce.com and, just as well, at https://www.cspeirce.com . It'll take a while to repair / update all the links! ► 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 UNSUBSCRIBE PEIRCE-L in the SUBJECT LINE of the message and nothing in the body. More at https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/help/user-signoff.html . ► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary Richmond; and co-managed by him and Ben Udell.
