Edwina, List: As I said, if you are unwilling, for the sake of this discussion, to set aside your own model of semiosis--and (especially) your own peculiar terminology, which is very different from mine--then further dialogue between us will almost certainly be fruitless. I fully expect you to disagree with me on just about every single one of the following points.
1. I chose a particular abstract example very intentionally. 2. The Sign is not a "triad," although the IO and II are indeed *within * it. 3. There is no "Representamen" as you define it; for me, that word is just a synonym for "Sign." 4. The DI *can *be a feeling (1ns/Sympathetic) or exertion (2ns/Percussive), but my example happens to be a case where it is *always *another Sign (3ns/Usual), which is why a shout of STOP is not an equivalent scenario. 5. Peirce explicitly differentiated between Signs whose "Manner of Appeal" is Imperative (urged or asserted) vs. Suggestive (merely presented for contemplation); this proposal is of the latter kind. 6. Signs absolutely can be, and often are, transmitted externally; this e-mail message is precisely such a Sign, or more accurately, a Replica of a Sign. 7. My current working definitions are that the DO is the Matter that the Sign denotes, the IO is the Form that the Sign signifies, the II is the Form that the Sign communicates, the DI is the Matter that the Sign determines, and the FI is the Entelechy that the Sign intends. 8. The diagram was attached to my last message, and is now downloadable from the List archive ( https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/arc/peirce-l/2018-03/msg00191/Semiosis.jpg). Finally, your allegation, "You are claiming that there is only one valid model - yours!!! Do you want a debate and dialogue or merely subservient following?" is baseless, absurd, and offensive, and I frankly think that you owe me a retraction and apology. What part of "This thread is intended to be an inquiry for which I am seeking the assistance of the List community" and "I am still very much open to being persuaded" did you not understand? Cheers, Jon S. On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 4:53 PM, Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca> wrote: > Jon, list: > > 1: Of course I know that the Quasi-Mind need not be a person but can be a > group of crystals and etc.! I am trying to provide an EXAMPLE of such > and its interaction. There is no need to complicate a simple example! > > 2. So- your use of the Sign is in its function as mediation - and not as > the Triad of [IO-R-II]. I think that readers need this clarified. > > 3. So wait - you are saying that a DI becomes ...what. I'm unsure. Are you > saying that a DI becomes..a Representamen? It sounds like you are confining > the term of Representamen to Thirdness...when you say it is "not feelings > or exertions" [which are in 1ns and 2ns]. But..I disagree on both counts. > A Representamen [and I use the term to differentiate it from the TRIAD > [IO-R-II]...can be in any categorical mode. > > And - I don't see that a DI becomes a Representamen. Its informational > content can be generalized and added to the knowledge base/habits of the > Representamen, but I don't see that the DI becomes 'a further Sign'. > > 4. And now, you are confusing me again, with your statement: > > "Furthermore, each IO and II is internal to a Sign, not internal to a > person (or Quasi-mind); and "existence" is not coextensive with "objective > reality," since a DO can be a Possible or a Necessitant, not just an > Existent." > > In the above statement, you are using the term Sign to refer not to the > Representamen /medium - which you do in point 2, but to the triad! > > And you are being 'picky' with my reference to the DO as 'objective > reality'. I'm aware that a DO can be in any categorical mode. I was > providing an example of a shout of STOP. > > I don't see why I should set aside my own model of semiosis, which I > consider to be based on Peirce, to debate with you about YOUR model - with > which I have problems. You are claiming that there is only one valid model > - yours!!! Do you want a debate and dialogue or merely subservient > following? > > 5. You say that you are: > > " by no means "asserting that the IO and II are the same," only tentatively > suggesting that one Sign's II is the subsequent Sign's IO. " > > Whew - does the difference between 'asserting' and 'suggesting' really > nullify my asking you why you are making such a claim? > > 6. You write: " If this is correct--and I am still very much open to being > persuaded > that it is not--then the change in information ("mediation and > transformation") occurs during the transmission of the Sign from one > Quasi-mind to another" > > What do you mean by 'Sign' in the above sentence? The Representamen or ??? > If you mean the Representamen - it is not transmitted. It is a function of > an Agent's [person/bee/crystal]...semiosic process and serves to mould > the information received - and transmit it to another Agential semiosic > site. Do you mean information as held within the Interpretants? > > 7. And, you write: " The Form that Sign Y signifies (IO) is not identical > to the Form that Sign Y communicates (II), which is precisely why its DI > (Sign Z) is not identical to Sign Y itself." > > What do you mean by 'Sign' in the above? The Representamen? Or the Triad? > The Representamen does not, to my understanding, signify an IO. > > 8. No diagramme is attached. > > Edwina >
----------------------------- 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 .
