BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px; }Stephen, list.
I agree - semiosis functions with the real world and not just in the abstract musings of the seminar room - which, yes, can succumb to nominalism. So, explicit examples are vital because these examples move terms from POV to actual operational functionality. It is only then that we can see contradictions and problems within those terms and their relations. Edwina On Thu 22/03/18 5:46 AM , "Stephen C. Rose" stever...@gmail.com sent: If semiosis is real, a general, true regardless what one thinks or does not think, how can any theory of it be more than an inadequate effort to make sense of the reality it embodies. This is one reason that examples are relevant. If my sign is today's news i can proceed to tell you how I might parse it according to mu lights. But I would also be going on the premise that today's news sits in an infinite (from my POV) sea of potential views. My analysis would not depend on the veracity of my theory or way of looking at today's news. I might explain it which is what I mean by always suggesting there be an example. But when we get to that point we have left the fundamental truth of semiosis (its universality and reality) and gotten to how we think. That is interesting but it has litte interest to someone who has a different way of looking at what is the case. It is more a case study I think. Even Peirce whom we concede to have studied more deeply than most is only, implicitly by sharing his philosophy, offering us a view of how he gets where he is going. Each of us, if reading him, will concede that these theories and modes are subject to his general and repeated affirmation of realism and his rejection of nominalism. amazon.com/author/stephenrose [1] On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 9:34 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt wrote: 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. *I chose a particular abstract example very intentionally. *The Sign is not a "triad," although the IO and II are indeed within it. *There is no "Representamen" as you define it; for me, that word is just a synonym for "Sign." *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. *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. *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. *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. *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 [3]). 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 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 [5] . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu [6] with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/ [7]peirce-l/peirce-l.htm . Links: ------ [1] http://amazon.com/author/stephenrose [2] http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'jonalanschm...@gmail.com\',\'\',\'\',\'\') [3] https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/arc/peirce-l/2018-03/msg00191/Semiosis.jpg [4] http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'tabor...@primus.ca\',\'\',\'\',\'\') [5] http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'peirce-L@list.iupui.edu\',\'\',\'\',\'\') [6] http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'l...@list.iupui.edu\',\'\',\'\',\'\') [7] http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm
----------------------------- 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 .