Edwina, List: 1. Per my last response to Gary R., it depends on which Sign we are discussing. The loud sound is obviously outside the bird, while the neural pattern is obviously inside the bird. In my current thinking, both can be analyzed as Representamens; in yours, if I understand you correctly, only the latter is a Representamen.
2. I start having trouble following you when you introduce new terms like "morphological units" and "material forms"; the latter term, in particular, almost seems like an oxymoron, since philosophers (including Peirce) traditionally maintain a *distinction *between form (1ns) and matter (2ns). In any case, you only mention birds, trees, and insects as "locations" of semiosis; does this mean that you reject *physical *semiosis in *non-living* material things, or perhaps view it as consisting entirely of brute dyadic reactions? 3. Again, where memory (collateral experience) and habits (of interpretation) fit into the process of semiosis is precisely what I am now trying to figure out. Because I define the Representamen as that which stands for an Object to an Intepretant--which is how I read Peirce defining it, as well--I do not see how these elements can be "located" within the Representamen. Instead, my sense--still quite vague and tentative at this point--is that collateral experience has something to do with recognizing the Immediate Object as a determination of its Dynamic Object, while habits of interpretation have something to do with the tendency to produce a particular Dynamic Interpretant from the range of possibilities that constitutes the Immediate Interpretant. 4. It sounds like we agree on interpreting Peirce as holding that substances (like an individual bird) are bundles of habits. Regards, Jon S. On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 7:31 AM, Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca> wrote: > Jon, list > > 1] In your view - where is the location of the Sign - if not in the bird? > Is your Sign floating around as an ICloud? > > 2] Yes - semiosis only takes place within morphological units, in this > case, within the bird. Semiosis is also going on in other material forms > outside of this bird, within the tree, the other birds, the insects.. > Semiosis is ongoing within these material forms and between these material > forms. > > 3] Where, in your view, does memory or continuity or habits exist? I > consider that habits/memory exist within the material form. Consider > an atom; its habits of formation DO exist; without such habits - it would > not exist as that atom. Same with the bird; its habits of formation exist > [DNA etc] within it. > > 4] The individual sound acts on the habits of form within the Bird; these > habits set up the neurological reaction of 'fear and flight'. Without such > habits- the bird would not exist but would collapse into...multiple diverse > molecules??? > > Edwina > > On Sun 04/02/18 10:12 PM , Jon Alan Schmidt jonalanschm...@gmail.com sent: > > Edwina, List: > > I still think that the IO-R-II triad is within the Sign, not necessarily > within the bird (Receiver), but we can set that disagreement aside for > now. More to the point--in your view, does semiosis only take place > within the bird? Is there no other semiosis going on, in which the loud > sound plays the role of the Representamen? > > How can the Representamen be classified as general (Legisign or Type) in > a scenario where an individual sound leads an individual bird to the > individual > action of flight? I thought you were saying in your previous post that it > is a Rhematic Indexical Sinsign, which makes much more sense to me. > > Regards, > > Jon S. > > On Sun, Feb 4, 2018 at 8:22 PM, Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca> > wrote: > >> The key action of semiosis that I am examining takes place within the >> bird....the IO-Representamen-II. >> >> A Representamen is always internal to the triad. >> >> The loud sound is both the Dynamic Object - which causes the bird to >> react and..a version of that loud sound within the bird's neurological >> system is the IO. >> >> What mediates between the tree and the bird? The action of semiosis: >> which is triadic - : O-R-I, or DO-IO-R-II-DI. >> >> The sound - which has affected the bird - is the Dynamic Object. >> >> The Representamen is the action of mediation within the Triad; it doesn't >> stand alone. >> >> ------------------------ >> >> A deaf bird would see the other bird flee; that would be the DO to that >> deaf bird- the bird's flight. >> >> Then, the deaf bird's IO would be its neurological impression of that >> other flight; mediated by its Representamen of knowledge of that >> adrenalin rush...to its own II and then - its own DI or flight. >> >> ----------------------------------------------------------- >> No - I don't consider that the Representamen in these 'bird cases' is in >> a mode of Secondness. It's in a mode of Thirdness - the knowledge base, >> both biological and learned, of that bird. >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------ >> Edwina >> >> On Sun 04/02/18 8:42 PM , Jon Alan Schmidt jonalanschm...@gmail.com sent: >> >> Edwina, List: >> >> Just a few comments--not to start another argument, just to highlight >> more differences in our views that are becoming apparent. >> >> The loud sound involves the behavior of matter, which is effete mind, and >> mediates between the falling tree and the fleeing bird; so I am still not >> seeing why it could not be a Representamen if the scenario is analyzed in a >> certain way. Are you positing some kind of discontinuity in the >> semiosis during the chain of events from the falling of the tree, to the >> loud sound that it causes, to the impinging of the propagating sound waves >> on the bird, to its resulting neural pattern, to its flight? Otherwise, it >> seems to me that each of these could be analyzed as a >> Representamen--even the bird's flight, which might signal to another bird >> (say, a deaf one) that it should flee, as well. >> >> As I have stated a couple of times before, I consider our example to be >> one in which all of the correlates are Existents (2ns); i.e., per the 1903 >> Sign classification, it is an Indexical Sinsign, although I am inclined to >> agree that it is Rhematic, rather than Dicent. The bird's >> reaction/interpretation of the Sign is the individual action of flight; >> the habit was already in place before the loud sound ever happened. >> >> Regards, >> >> Jon S. >> >> On Sun, Feb 4, 2018 at 6:38 PM, Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca> >> wrote: >> >>> 1]Jon - to me, the Representamen is an act of mediation; it transforms >>> the data from the IO [Immediate Object] into an Interpretation... >>> >>> So- to me, the loud sound is incoming sensate data; It doesn't act >>> as MIND, transforming this sound into some interpretation of it. >>> >>> I am, in the above, assuming that the Representamen is in a mode of >>> Thirdness [Mind]. For example, as >>> >>> O-R-I or a Rhematic Indexical Legisign, an individual interpretation of >>> local stimuli as referenced to a general rule. >>> >>> So- the bird's reaction/interpretation of the sound..is the habit of >>> flight. >>> >>> But- the Representamen can be in other modes. >>> >>> ------------------------------------------------------------ >>> --------------------------------------------- >>> >>> 2] Now..let's see..what if it's instead in a mode of Firstness. >>> >>> this would have the triad [O-R-I] as a Rhematic Iconic Qualisign- where >>> all three parts of the Sign are in a mode of Firstness. Peirce's example >>> was that 'feeling of redness'; this example would be a feeling of sound. A >>> local and internal non-interpreted, non-describe individual state. >>> >>> 3] What if the Representamen were in a mode of Secondness. There are >>> three classes where the R is in a mode of Secondness: >>> >>> O-R-I or 1-2-1 A Rhematic Iconic Sinsign. An individual diagram; an >>> iconic non-analyzed description of a sensation >>> >>> O-R-I or 2-2-1 A Rhematic Indexical Sinsign . A spontaneous cry. a >>> local non-intentional reaction to a local and direct indexical stimuli. >>> >>> O-R-I or 2-2-2- a Dicent Indexical Sinsign; a mechanical reaction. >>> >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------- >>> >>> So - in the above - I could see that the Representamen could be in a >>> mode of Secondness..as a Rhematic Indexical Sinsign. >>> >>> --------------------------- >>> >>> But- in none of the above - do I define the loud sound as the >>> Representamen, since I maintain that its role is mediation. >>> >>> Edwina >>> >>> On Sun 04/02/18 7:13 PM , Jon Alan Schmidt jonalanschm...@gmail.com >>> sent: >>> >>> Edwina, List: >>> >>> Yes, again, we have very different definitions of "Representamen." Just >>> to clarify--are you saying that in your view, the loud sound cannot be >>> treated as the Representamen in any semiotic analysis of this >>> scenario? If so, why not? >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> Jon S. >>> >>> On Sun, Feb 4, 2018 at 5:15 PM, Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> I would disagree. The falling of the tree is a full Sign >>>> [O-R-I]....with the actual fall as the Dynamic Interpretant. The >>>> wind-taking-down-the-tree might by a Dynamic Object to the tree...which >>>> then reacts by falling [DI]. >>>> >>>> But within the bird, what affects the senses of the bird - is that loud >>>> sound. That is the external Dynamic Object to that situation. The Immediate >>>> Object is whatever sensual data is felt within the bird from that sound. >>>> The Representamen is a process of mediating this sensate data into an >>>> interpretation [II and DI]. >>>> >>>> Edwina >>>> >>>> On Sun 04/02/18 4:08 PM , Jon Alan Schmidt jonalanschm...@gmail.com >>>> sent: >>>> >>>> Helmut, List: >>>> >>>> In my view, we can indeed take the loud sound to be the Representamen, >>>> as I initially suggested--noting again that my definition differs >>>> significantly from Edwina's. This leads to a different analysis in which >>>> the Dynamic Object is the falling of the tree that causes the sound, >>>> with the other terms reassigned accordingly. Sign-action is mediation, >>>> even though the Sign itself is indeed the First Correlate of the >>>> genuine triadic relation that has the Object as its Second Correlate and >>>> the Interpretant as its Third Correlate (cf. EP 2:290; 1903). >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> >>>> Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA >>>> Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman >>>> www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt >>>> >>>>
----------------------------- 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 .
