BU: Jim below says things pretty near to that which I'm saying in
terms of the distinction between object and sign, and it seems that the
"bad regression" stuff that I've said about his previous stuff no longer
applies.
JR: Perhaps it never did.
BU: Object and signs are roles. They are logical roles, and their
distinction is a logical distinction, not a metaphysical or physical or material
or biological or psychological distinction, though it takes on complex
psychological relevance insofar as a psyche will be an inference process and
will not only develop structures which manifest the distinction, but
will also tend consciously to employ the distinction and even thematize it and
make a topic (a semiotic object) out of it (like right now).
JR: yes that certainly happens
BU: However, my argument has
been that, when one pays sufficient attention to the relationships involved, one
sees that a verification is _not_ a representation, in those
relationships in which it is a verification, -- just as an object is not a sign
in those relationships in which it is an object. Even when a
thing-in-its-signhood is the object, the subject matter, then it is _in that
respect_ the object and not a sign, though it wouldn't be the object if it
were not a sign (and indeed every object is a sign in some set of
relationships). These logical distinctions don't wash away so easily.
Jim below says things pretty near to that which I'm saying in terms of
the distinction between object and sign, and it seems that the "bad
regression" stuff that I've said about his previous stuff no longer
applies.
Object and signs are roles. They are logical roles, and their distinction
is a logical distinction, not a metaphysical or physical or material or
biological or psychological distinction, though it takes on complex
psychological relevance insofar as a psyche will be an inference process and
will not only develop structures which manifest the distinction, but
will also tend consciously to employ the distinction and even thematize it and
make a topic (a semiotic object) out of it (like right now).
However, my argument has been that, when one pays sufficient attention to
the relationships involved, one sees that a verification is _not_ a
representation, in those relationships in which it is a verification, -- just
as an object is not a sign in those relationships in which it is an object.
Even when a thing-in-its-signhood is the object, the subject matter, then it
is _in that respect_ the object and not a sign, though it wouldn't be
the object if it were not a sign (and indeed every object is a sign in some
set of relationships). These logical distinctions don't wash away so
easily.
Meaning is formed into the interpretant. Validity, soundness, etc., are
formed into the recognition.
Meaning is conveyed and developed through "chains" and structures of
interpretants. Validity, soundness, legitimacy, is conveyed and developed
through "chains" and structures of recognitions.
One even has some slack in "making" the distinction between interpretant
and verification -- it's a slack which one needs in order to learn about the
distinction so as to incorporate those learnings into oneself as a semiosic
sytem and so as to employ the distinction in a non-reckless but also
non-complacent manner.
(For everything -- (a) boldness, (b) confident behavior, (c) caution, (d)
resignation --
there is a season -- (a) bravery, (b) duely confident behavior, (c)
prudence, (d) "realism" --
& an out-of-season -- (a) rashness, (b) complacency, (c) cowardice,
(d) defeatism.)
In a sense the distinction (interpretant vs. verification) which I'm
discussing is an aspect of the ancient one traceable between
meaning, value, good, end (telos), actualization, affectivity
and
factuality, validity, soundness, true, entelechy, reality,
establishment, cognition.
To make it four-way:
1. object ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 3. interpretant
2. sign ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 4. recognition, verification
1. strength, dynamism ~ ~ ~ 3. vibrancy, value, good
2. suitability, richness ~ ~ ~ 4. firmness, soundness, truth
etc.
1. will & character ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 3. affectivity & sensibility
2. ability & competence ~ ~ 4. cognition & intelligence
1. agency ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 3. act, actualization
2. bearer ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 4. borne, supported
1. beginning, leading, arche ~ ~ 3. end, telos,
culmination
2. middle, means ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 4. check, entelechy
1. multi-objective optimization process ~ ~ 3. cybernetic process
2. stochastic process ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 4. inference process
1. forces ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 3. life
2. matter ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 4. intelligent life
Best, Ben
----- Original Message -----
From: Jim Piat
To: Peirce Discussion Forum
Sent: Sunday, August 20, 2006 1:54 PM
Subject: [peirce-l] Re: The "composite photograph" metaphor
Charles Rudder wrote:
>> That is, there is an immediate--non-mediated and, hence,
cognitively autonomous relation between cognizing subjects and objects
consisting of phenomena and/or things in themselves who are in some sense able
to "see" or "recognize" objects and relations between and among objects as
they are independent of how they are represented by signs and their
interpretants. On this account of cognition, signs and systems of signs
are "instrumental" auxiliaries to cognition and their semiosical
instrumentality is subject to being and is consciously or unconsciously
continuously being extrasemiosically evaluated, validated, or "verified" by
cognizing subjects; a process which Peirce, who makes cognition and cognitive
growth an exclusively semiosical process, ignores.>>
Dear Charles, Folks
Here's my take --
That one has some sort of non-representational "knowledge" of objects
against which one can compare or verify one's representational or semiotic
knowledge does seem to be a popular view of the issue of how reality is
accessed or known. But I think this is a view Peirce rejected in
the New List.
However this is not to say that there is no practical distinction between
what is meant by an object and what is meant by a representation of an
object. An object is that which is interpreted as standing for (or
representing) itself. A sign is something that is interpreted as
standing for something other than itself. Thus one can compare one's
interpretation of a sign of a collateral object with one's interpretation of
the referenced collateral object itself even though both the object of the
sign and the collateral object are known only through representation.
The collateral object and the object of some discussion of it are in theory
the same object. The distinction is between one's direct representation
of the object vs it's indirect representation to one by others. In both
cases the object is represented.
There are no inherent distinctions between those objects we interpret as
objects and those we interpret as signs -- the distinction is in how we
use them. The object referred to by a sign is always collateral to the
sign itself unless the sign is referring to itself in some sort of convoluted
self referential fashion. The distinction between direct (albeit
mediated) knowledge of an object and the sort of second hand knowledge one
gains from the accounts of others poses no special problems. There is
nothing magic about direct personal knowledge that gives it some sort of
special objective validity over the accounts of others. What makes such
personal aquaintance valuable is not their imagined "objectivity" but
their trustworthiness (in terms of serving one's own interests as opposed to
the interests of others). OTOH multiple observation gathered from
different "trustworthy" POVs do provide a more complete and thus more reliable
and useful (or "true"as some say) account of reality.
And finally, verification (conceiving a manifold of senuous
impressions as having some particular meaning) IS representation -- at least
for Peirce (as I understand him).
Just some thoughts as I'm following this discussion.
Best,
Jim
---
Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free
Edition.
Version: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.11.3/423 - Release Date:
8/18/2006