Edwina, List: I have given you what I believe are *very clear* answers to your questions and comments, but you refuse to accept them because they are inconsistent with your own peculiar terminology--which, in my opinion, is *not *Peirce's terminology. Setting it aside does not necessarily mean giving it up, just *provisionally *accepting *my *definitions for the sake of *this * discussion.
I have worked very hard over the last couple of months to understand *your *model of semiosis better *on its own terms*, despite the fact that I did not (and still do not) agree with it. You are evidently unwilling to reciprocate, which is your right, but--again--it entails that further dialogue will be fruitless. Your opinions and vigorous disagreement are not what offended me--it was your ridiculous allegation that I am claiming exclusive validity for my model of semiosis, when I have been quite explicit about it being *tentative *and something that I am *suggesting *in the hope of receiving *constructive *feedback from the List community. That is what I am still seeking. Jon S. On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 9:18 PM, Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca> wrote: > Jon > > Hmm. Well, I don't disagree with all your points. After all, some of them > aren't open to agreement or disagreement. > > So- I disagree with 2, 3, 4 and 7 - which are interpretations and are thus > open to agreement/disagreement. > > And no, I won't retract or apologize for my opinion; after all - when I > reject your point of view - you inform me that my view is just my own model > [suggesting as you have done in the past, that it is non-Peircean? > ].....and suggesting I should set it aside. Why should I do so? I am not > asking you to set aside your model! I'm asking you to clarify it - and > can't seem to get clear answers. You also want me to set aside my > 'peculiar terminology ' What's peculiar about it? It's Peirce's > terminology!. > > So- apart from your saying that you are very much open to other's > viewpoints - are you? Debate includes the reality that sometimes, the > opinions of others challenge your own and thus, one offends or is > offended. That's life. I'm not asking you to apologize for your view that > my understanding of Peirce is 'my own' and 'peculiar'. Nor for your > request that I set aside, give up, my model of Peirce. That's just your > opinion! And - I'm not offended. This is an academic debate and 'being > offended' has no place in such an interaction. > > Edwina > > On Wed 21/03/18 9:34 PM , Jon Alan Schmidt jonalanschm...@gmail.com sent: > > 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 > <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 .
