Re: Aw: Re: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] semantic problem with the term
Helmut - a concept can be formed by an individual. It doesn't have to be formed by a group. The concept that the two people are using is a dynamic object. Yes, their interaction, if there are two people discussing a common concept, connects them to the wider community. Edwina -- This message is virus free, protected by Primus - Canada's largest alternative telecommunications provider. http://www.primus.ca On Fri 31/03/17 4:26 PM , "Helmut Raulien" h.raul...@gmx.de sent: Edwina, The immediate interpretant is internal, but a concept is formed by a society, which the individuals are parts of. So perhaps they have access to what is internal of the society? I mean, when eg. two individuals talk about a common concept, this talk automatically makes them parts of the community, so the sign that is taking place in the community is sort of partially transparent for them, so their two-persons-sign can be connected with the bigger and slower community-sign it is part of? Best, Helmut 31. März 2017 um 22:04 Uhr Von: "Edwina Taborsky" Helmut - you asked: Do you think, that also an immediate interpretant and a final one may become a dynamical object? My guess is, that immediate interpretants become concepts, dynamical interpretants become material things, and final interpretants become topics that have happened or been in the past (all for DynObjs). My view is that the Immediate Interpretant is internal and thus, cannot become a dynamic object, which is external. I don't see that an immediate Interpretant is a concept, which is to say, an intellectual construct. It could be an anticipatory form of what will be an objective form that is externalizing to be a Dynamic Interpretant, i.e., similar to an embryo. A dynamical Interpretant could be a material existentiality and also, a conceptual existentiality. I see a final interpretant as not a particular but a general. Edwina -- This message is virus free, protected by Primus - Canada's largest alternative telecommunications provider. http://www.primus.ca [1] On Fri 31/03/17 2:46 PM , "Helmut Raulien" h.raul...@gmx.de sent: List, Jeffrey, I too had problems with that. Now I think, that Peirce uses the term "habit" in a broader sense: Usually, when I hear or read "habit" I think of a gradual approximation process. This cannot be the case with conservation of energy, because exact conservation cannot be approached: If in all reactions, physical and chemical, only a little energy was lost or won, then the universe would freeze or explode in an instant, I guess. A similar problem is the fine tunedness of constants. But Peircean habit also may be saltatory, and includes emergences, I guess. "Effete" sounds a bit pejatorive to me, I rather think of matter as condensed or precipitated mind, but "effete" I accept for correct of course. Edwina, you wrote, that a dynamical interpretant of one sign may work as a dynamical object for another. Do you think, that also an immediate interpretant and a final one may become a dynamical object? My guess is, that immediate interpretants become concepts, dynamical interpretants become material things, and final interpretants become topics that have happened or been in the past (all for DynObjs). Best, Helmut 31. März 2017 um 17:45 Uhr Von: "Jeffrey Brian Downard" Edwina, Clark, List, Better, I think, to call the first explanatory principle you quote from Peirce a hypothesis than an axiom. In addition to being a better reflection of what Peirce is doing in introducing these grand explanatory principles into the special sciences from his work in metaphysics, it will also help to avoid the confusion that might be caused for people who think about axioms as fundamental rules that are beyond doubt. --Jeff Jeffrey Downard Associate Professor Department of Philosophy Northern Arizona University (o) 928 523-8354 - From: Edwina Taborsky Sent: Friday, March 31, 2017 8:11 AM To: Peirce-L; CLARK GOBLE Subject: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] semantic problem with the term Clark - OK - I'll put in a long comment here on how I see the non-philosophical aspects of Peirce's work. Thanks for your encouragement to do so. Basic axioms: that our universe operates as energy-transforming-to-matter, or ‘things’ [Peirce used the term ‘things’ often] via semiosic actions. * The emergence of Matter: Peirce: 1.412 “out of the womb of indeterminacy, we must say that there would have come something, by the principle of Firstness, which we may call a flash. Then by the principle of habit there would have been a second flash…..” The point here is that matter emerged as differentiated and also, as then connected by habits and by kinetic interaction. The origin of Material matter: 1.362 “the starting point of the universe, God the Creator is the Absolute First; the term
Aw: Re: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] semantic problem with the term
Edwina, The immediate interpretant is internal, but a concept is formed by a society, which the individuals are parts of. So perhaps they have access to what is internal of the society? I mean, when eg. two individuals talk about a common concept, this talk automatically makes them parts of the community, so the sign that is taking place in the community is sort of partially transparent for them, so their two-persons-sign can be connected with the bigger and slower community-sign it is part of? Best, Helmut 31. März 2017 um 22:04 Uhr Von: "Edwina Taborsky" Helmut - you asked: Do you think, that also an immediate interpretant and a final one may become a dynamical object? My guess is, that immediate interpretants become concepts, dynamical interpretants become material things, and final interpretants become topics that have happened or been in the past (all for DynObjs). My view is that the Immediate Interpretant is internal and thus, cannot become a dynamic object, which is external. I don't see that an immediate Interpretant is a concept, which is to say, an intellectual construct. It could be an anticipatory form of what will be an objective form that is externalizing to be a Dynamic Interpretant, i.e., similar to an embryo. A dynamical Interpretant could be a material existentiality and also, a conceptual existentiality. I see a final interpretant as not a particular but a general. Edwina -- This message is virus free, protected by Primus - Canada's largest alternative telecommunications provider. http://www.primus.ca On Fri 31/03/17 2:46 PM , "Helmut Raulien" h.raul...@gmx.de sent: List, Jeffrey, I too had problems with that. Now I think, that Peirce uses the term "habit" in a broader sense: Usually, when I hear or read "habit" I think of a gradual approximation process. This cannot be the case with conservation of energy, because exact conservation cannot be approached: If in all reactions, physical and chemical, only a little energy was lost or won, then the universe would freeze or explode in an instant, I guess. A similar problem is the fine tunedness of constants. But Peircean habit also may be saltatory, and includes emergences, I guess. "Effete" sounds a bit pejatorive to me, I rather think of matter as condensed or precipitated mind, but "effete" I accept for correct of course. Edwina, you wrote, that a dynamical interpretant of one sign may work as a dynamical object for another. Do you think, that also an immediate interpretant and a final one may become a dynamical object? My guess is, that immediate interpretants become concepts, dynamical interpretants become material things, and final interpretants become topics that have happened or been in the past (all for DynObjs). Best, Helmut 31. März 2017 um 17:45 Uhr Von: "Jeffrey Brian Downard" Edwina, Clark, List, Better, I think, to call the first explanatory principle you quote from Peirce a hypothesis than an axiom. In addition to being a better reflection of what Peirce is doing in introducing these grand explanatory principles into the special sciences from his work in metaphysics, it will also help to avoid the confusion that might be caused for people who think about axioms as fundamental rules that are beyond doubt. --Jeff Jeffrey Downard Associate Professor Department of Philosophy Northern Arizona University (o) 928 523-8354 From: Edwina Taborsky Sent: Friday, March 31, 2017 8:11 AM To: Peirce-L; CLARK GOBLE Subject: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] semantic problem with the term Clark - OK - I'll put in a long comment here on how I see the non-philosophical aspects of Peirce's work. Thanks for your encouragement to do so. Basic axioms: that our universe operates as energy-transforming-to-matter, or ‘things’ [Peirce used the term ‘things’ often] via semiosic actions. The emergence of Matter: Peirce: 1.412 “out of the womb of indeterminacy, we must say that there would have come something, by the principle of Firstness, which we may call a flash. Then by the principle of habit there would have been a second flash…..” The point here is that matter emerged as differentiated and also, as then connected by habits and by kinetic interaction. The origin of Material matter: 1.362 “the starting point of the universe, God the Creator is the Absolute First; the terminus of the universe, God completely revealed, is the Absolute Second; every state of the universe at a measurable point of time is the third……..If your creed is that the whole universe is approaching in the infinitely distance future a state having a general character different from that toward which we look back in the infinitely distance past, you make the absolute to consist in two distinct real points and are an evolutionist” I consider the term ‘God’ to be a synonym for Mind. See Peirce’s analysis – and I’ll only refer to a few: “Mind is a propositional function of the widest possible un
Re: Aw: Re: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] semantic problem with the term
Dear list: rather ironic that the ultimate, immutable aim- the one that should accord with a free development of the agent's own esthetic quality- takes on the form of a carrot, no? Best, Jerry R On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 12:36 PM, Claudio Guerri wrote: > Mein lieber Helmut, List, > again answer between the lines with >>> > (this was taught to me by T.A.Sebeok just at the beginning of e-mails) > > Helmut Raulien escribió el 27/03/2017 a las 13:14: > > Claudio, List, > So it is a bit paradoxical: On one hand we should be aware, that we are > carrot-chasing donkeys, on the other hand we should not abandon the carrot > chasing projects, inquiry. And we must respect other donkeys who are > chasing different carrots. > > >>> EXACTLY!!! with no offense to donkeys and carrots... > and with no offense to thousands of years of inquiery in which all > scholars where traying to chase the DO-carrot. > > And, for not thinking that there are alternative carrots, we should > believe that there is only one carrot of each kind, that is to say too that > the carrots exist. > Best, > Helmut > > >>> I could agree with this, if you say "one carrot of each kind" but only > for not more than 5 minutes... > Let as hope that we are able to THINK seriously. > All the best > Dein > CLaudio > > > > > 27. März 2017 um 14:11 Uhr > "Claudio Guerri" > > Edwina, Helmut, List, > I think that a very good aspect of Peirce's proposal is that there is no > 'THE TRUTH' anymore. > Signs can only construct other signs (images, texts, speeches,etc.), > perhaps, sometimes, "a more developed sign" (CP 2.228). > But never a definitive 'final explanation'... and this is very good for > us: humans!!! > So, there is no sense for 'religious' fights, because everything is only a > little aspect a bigger whole, which can be considered the 'Dynamic Object'. > We don't need to "achieve a true representation of a fact", because it IS > "changing all the time". > It is enough if we can figure out a good explanation for our time, hoping > that we will enlarge the concept tomorrow. > Art, Architecture, Design in general is only possible because of that > fact: we can only construct an Immediate Object, one after an other... > endlessly... > and that is exactly the chance to exist, and to be artists, architects, > designers, composers, poets, etc., etc... > if the inquiry don't need anymore to be endless... then, we will be also > definitively out of work. > > To Edwina: "We would have no capacity to change both that dynamic object > or our interactions with it." (quote) > You will probably agree that we can only change the Immediate Object > we can never grasp anything of the Dynamic Object without transforming it > at the same time in an Immediate Object > the Dynamic Object is like "the carrot in front of the donkey" (I don't > know if this is also an English expression), we will never reach it... > happily... > > All the best > Claudio > > > Helmut Raulien escribió el 26/03/2017 a las 15:12: > > Claudio, Edwina, List, > I wonder whether the two kinds of truth are exactly the same as the two > kinds of object. When two people talk about a common concept of a fact, > then the dynamical object is the common concept as it exists outside of the > talk (the sign). But this dynamical object is not the truth-as-the-fact. > Though it is the truth-as-another-fact: The fact that the common concept > exists and is like it is. > The common-concept-as-a-fact changes, even due to this one sign. > So it is hard to achieve a true representation of a fact which is changing > all the time. I guess, that the only facts or dynamical objects that donot > change, are metaphysical laws, like axioms, or deductions that have these > axioms for premisses. > That is why I doubt the theory by Peirce, that truth or a final > interpretant can always be achieved or even just approached by (perhaps > even endless) inquiry: It is like a crawling lizard hunting a leaping frog. > Besides changing facts, and metaphysical (eternal) facts, there is a third > kind of fact: A fact that is an event-as-it-has-happened, or something that > has been in a certain state in the past. > I think, that also this kind of truth cannot always be achieved by endless > inquiry, because there might be information missing due to non-complete > documentation. > So I guess, that Peirces truth theory about endless inquiry merely applies > to metaphysical facts. > Or when the inquiry goes much faster than the change of fact, or when the > documentation is complete... > Best, > Helmut > > 26. März 2017 um 16:48 Uhr > "Edwina Taborsky" wrote: > > > > The FACT that the content of the immediate and dynamic object are > different indeed 'makes us just humans' but I'd say that it makes us > 'humans'. That is, I'd remove the 'just' from the phrase. That means that > our cognitive capacity, our capacity to learn, to 'have knowledge' means > that we, with that capacity for reasoning and analysis, can think about > th
Re: Aw: Re: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] semantic problem with the term
Mein lieber Helmut, List, again answer between the lines with >>> (this was taught to me by T.A.Sebeok just at the beginning of e-mails) Helmut Raulien escribió el 27/03/2017 a las 13:14: Claudio, List, So it is a bit paradoxical: On one hand we should be aware, that we are carrot-chasing donkeys, on the other hand we should not abandon the carrot chasing projects, inquiry. And we must respect other donkeys who are chasing different carrots. >>> EXACTLY!!! with no offense to donkeys and carrots... and with no offense to thousands of years of inquiery in which all scholars where traying to chase the DO-carrot. And, for not thinking that there are alternative carrots, we should believe that there is only one carrot of each kind, that is to say too that the carrots exist. Best, Helmut >>> I could agree with this, if you say "one carrot of each kind" but only for not more than 5 minutes... Let as hope that we are able to THINK seriously. All the best Dein CLaudio 27. März 2017 um 14:11 Uhr "Claudio Guerri" Edwina, Helmut, List, I think that a very good aspect of Peirce's proposal is that there is no 'THE TRUTH' anymore. Signs can only construct other signs (images, texts, speeches,etc.), perhaps, sometimes, "a more developed sign" (CP 2.228). But never a definitive 'final explanation'... and this is very good for us: humans!!! So, there is no sense for 'religious' fights, because everything is only a little aspect a bigger whole, which can be considered the 'Dynamic Object'. We don't need to "achieve a true representation of a fact", because it IS "changing all the time". It is enough if we can figure out a good explanation for our time, hoping that we will enlarge the concept tomorrow. Art, Architecture, Design in general is only possible because of that fact: we can only construct an Immediate Object, one after an other... endlessly... and that is exactly the chance to exist, and to be artists, architects, designers, composers, poets, etc., etc... if the inquiry don't need anymore to be endless... then, we will be also definitively out of work. To Edwina: "We would have no capacity to change both that dynamic object or our interactions with it." (quote) You will probably agree that we can only change the Immediate Object we can never grasp anything of the Dynamic Object without transforming it at the same time in an Immediate Object the Dynamic Object is like "the carrot in front of the donkey" (I don't know if this is also an English expression), we will never reach it... happily... All the best Claudio Helmut Raulien escribió el 26/03/2017 a las 15:12: Claudio, Edwina, List, I wonder whether the two kinds of truth are exactly the same as the two kinds of object. When two people talk about a common concept of a fact, then the dynamical object is the common concept as it exists outside of the talk (the sign). But this dynamical object is not the truth-as-the-fact. Though it is the truth-as-another-fact: The fact that the common concept exists and is like it is. The common-concept-as-a-fact changes, even due to this one sign. So it is hard to achieve a true representation of a fact which is changing all the time. I guess, that the only facts or dynamical objects that donot change, are metaphysical laws, like axioms, or deductions that have these axioms for premisses. That is why I doubt the theory by Peirce, that truth or a final interpretant can always be achieved or even just approached by (perhaps even endless) inquiry: It is like a crawling lizard hunting a leaping frog. Besides changing facts, and metaphysical (eternal) facts, there is a third kind of fact: A fact that is an event-as-it-has-happened, or something that has been in a certain state in the past. I think, that also this kind of truth cannot always be achieved by endless inquiry, because there might be information missing due to non-complete documentation. So I guess, that Peirces truth theory about endless inquiry merely applies to metaphysical facts. Or when the inquiry goes much faster than the change of fact, or when the documentation is complete... Best, Helmut 26. März 2017 um 16:48 Uhr "Edwina Taborsky" wrote: The FACT that the content of the immediate and dynamic object are different indeed 'makes us just humans' but I'd say that it makes us 'humans'. That is, I'd remove the 'just' from the phrase. That means that our cognitive capacity, our capacity to learn, to 'have knowledge' means that we, with that capacity for reasoning and analysis, can think about that dynamic object; can think about our immediate object - and, the three interpretants. Without such a capacity, we would be unable to do anything other than mechanically react. We would have no capacity to change both that dynamic object or our interactions with it.
Aw: Re: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] semantic problem with the term
Claudio, List, So it is a bit paradoxical: On one hand we should be aware, that we are carrot-chasing donkeys, on the other hand we should not abandon the carrot chasing projects, inquiry. And we must respect other donkeys who are chasing different carrots. And, for not thinking that there are alternative carrots, we should believe that there is only one carrot of each kind, that is to say too that the carrots exist. Best, Helmut 27. März 2017 um 14:11 Uhr "Claudio Guerri" Edwina, Helmut, List, I think that a very good aspect of Peirce's proposal is that there is no 'THE TRUTH' anymore. Signs can only construct other signs (images, texts, speeches,etc.), perhaps, sometimes, "a more developed sign" (CP 2.228). But never a definitive 'final explanation'... and this is very good for us: humans!!! So, there is no sense for 'religious' fights, because everything is only a little aspect a bigger whole, which can be considered the 'Dynamic Object'. We don't need to "achieve a true representation of a fact", because it IS "changing all the time". It is enough if we can figure out a good explanation for our time, hoping that we will enlarge the concept tomorrow. Art, Architecture, Design in general is only possible because of that fact: we can only construct an Immediate Object, one after an other... endlessly... and that is exactly the chance to exist, and to be artists, architects, designers, composers, poets, etc., etc... if the inquiry don't need anymore to be endless... then, we will be also definitively out of work. To Edwina: "We would have no capacity to change both that dynamic object or our interactions with it." (quote) You will probably agree that we can only change the Immediate Object we can never grasp anything of the Dynamic Object without transforming it at the same time in an Immediate Object the Dynamic Object is like "the carrot in front of the donkey" (I don't know if this is also an English _expression_), we will never reach it... happily... All the best Claudio Helmut Raulien escribió el 26/03/2017 a las 15:12: Claudio, Edwina, List, I wonder whether the two kinds of truth are exactly the same as the two kinds of object. When two people talk about a common concept of a fact, then the dynamical object is the common concept as it exists outside of the talk (the sign). But this dynamical object is not the truth-as-the-fact. Though it is the truth-as-another-fact: The fact that the common concept exists and is like it is. The common-concept-as-a-fact changes, even due to this one sign. So it is hard to achieve a true representation of a fact which is changing all the time. I guess, that the only facts or dynamical objects that donot change, are metaphysical laws, like axioms, or deductions that have these axioms for premisses. That is why I doubt the theory by Peirce, that truth or a final interpretant can always be achieved or even just approached by (perhaps even endless) inquiry: It is like a crawling lizard hunting a leaping frog. Besides changing facts, and metaphysical (eternal) facts, there is a third kind of fact: A fact that is an event-as-it-has-happened, or something that has been in a certain state in the past. I think, that also this kind of truth cannot always be achieved by endless inquiry, because there might be information missing due to non-complete documentation. So I guess, that Peirces truth theory about endless inquiry merely applies to metaphysical facts. Or when the inquiry goes much faster than the change of fact, or when the documentation is complete... Best, Helmut 26. März 2017 um 16:48 Uhr "Edwina Taborsky" wrote: The FACT that the content of the immediate and dynamic object are different indeed 'makes us just humans' but I'd say that it makes us 'humans'. That is, I'd remove the 'just' from the phrase. That means that our cognitive capacity, our capacity to learn, to 'have knowledge' means that we, with that capacity for reasoning and analysis, can think about that dynamic object; can think about our immediate object - and, the three interpretants. Without such a capacity, we would be unable to do anything other than mechanically react. We would have no capacity to change both that dynamic object or our interactions with it. Edwina Taborsky -- This message is virus free, protected by Primus - Canada's largest alternative telecommunications provider. http://www.primus.ca On Sun 26/03/17 10:22 AM , Claudio Guerri claudiogue...@gmail.com sent: List, forgive me for jumping in only very shortly but... I agree that that there can not be "alternative facts" but for sure, there are only alternative interpretations. And both concepts of immediate and dynamic object are a very clear explanation of that difference that makes as just humans... All the best Claudio Helmut Raulien escribió el 25/03/2017 a las 20:05: List, In common language the word "truth" is used for two different things: The fact and it´s representati
