BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}Jon, list
1. See my most recent post - which has the Representamen as the
mediation between the O and the I. As to whether this semiosic triad
can function 'outside or inside' - to me, that doesn't make any
sense, since I consider semiosic as an interaction between two
entities. ..Yes, this can be a purely conceptual interaction taking
place within one human..but..semiosis remains an interaction.
2. I disagree that Peirce considered the form as operative in
Firstness. Firstness is a quality, a sensation - and Form, as such,
functions within constraints, borders, rules .Form is a property of
Thirdness. I also disagree that matter is 'Secondness'. Secondness
is a brute interaction and not necessarily material. And- even matter
doesn't exist without Form. That's why I use the term 'morpohological
unit' - to outline the nature of matter-as-a-form.
3. I think that your interpretation of Peirce's outline misses the
point that the function of the Representamen is to mediate, and
transform the sensate data received from the DO - into some
understanding of what that data is. How can the Representamen mediate
- unless it 'is in touch' with, so to speak, the normative patterns,
the habits, of that entity?
Edwina
On Mon 05/02/18 9:39 AM , Jon Alan Schmidt jonalanschm...@gmail.com
sent:
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 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
[2] 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 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 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 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, USAProfessional Engineer, Amateur
Philosopher, Lutheran Laymanwww.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSch midt [3] -
twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt [4]
Links:
------
[1]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'tabor...@primus.ca\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
[2]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'jonalanschm...@gmail.com\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
[3] http://www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt
[4] http://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 .
