Edwina, List: I sincerely appreciate the effort on your part, but it seems to me that you are still trying to read the diagram in accordance with *your* definitions of the terms, rather than *mine*.
1. Each instance of OI-S-II is what you would call a "triad." 2. Yes, the second Sign (Y) is the DI of the first Sign (X); but remember, I disagree with your definition of the Representamen, so you cannot impose it on my diagram and still expect to make sense of it. 3. Sign X is only in Quasi-mind A and Sign Z is only in Quasi-mind B, but Sign Y is in *both* of them; it is what A "transmits" to B. The Commens is the overlap of Quasi-minds A and B; an example of its embodiment is the Phemic Sheet for Existential Graphs. 4. Again, the DI of Sign X is Sign Y, and the DI of Sign Y is Sign Z. The II of Sign Y indeed becomes the IO of Sign Z, but it *does not* become the DI of Sign Y. ET: So- if I read the diagramme correctly, an Immediate Interpretant is the equivalent of an Immediate Object not within Quasi-Mind A but within the Commens. And this Immediate Object is the equivalent of a Dynamic Interpretant and also a Representamen of its own...and ..... No, the idea is that one Sign's II *is *the next Sign's IO--they are both the same Form--and one Sign's DI *is *the next Sign *itself*. ET: I can see how Dynamic Interpretants of a collective become part of the habits of a common Representamen. I can even see them as acting as Immediate Objects in this process of habit-formation. There is no "common Representamen" in my model that possesses habits; instead, every individual Sign is an individual Representamen--the two words are synonymous. What possesses habits is each individual Quasi-mind. Moreover, DIs cannot "act" as IOs; DIs are Matter, IOs are Form. Looking at your own diagram--thank you for offering it--you seem to associate each *Quasi-mind* with a single IO and II. I, on the other hand, associate each *Sign *(or Representamen) with a single IO and II. If we could switch these terms--change "Generalizing Representamen" to "Generalizing Quasi-mind" and "Quasi-minds" to "Signs" (or "Representamens")--then our models might not be so different after all. Perhaps my reply just now to Jeff will shed further light; perhaps not. Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 12:40 PM, Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca> wrote: > JAS, list: > > That's an interesting diagramme but as I'm sure you would expect, I have > problems with it as a diagramme of Peircean semiosis. The comments below > will be unintelligible unless one is looking at the diagramme!! > > 1] It seems to be a series of dyads; that is, I'm not sure how the > Sign/Representamen operates as mediation to transform the Oi [Immediate > Object] to the Ii [Immediate Interpretant. My reason for saying this is > because, ..you have a first mediation act [Sx]...providing an Immediate > Interpretant..OK...but..then... > > 2] You seem to have set up another mediative act as its own triadic > Sign..it has become its own triad of Oi/S/Ii. To make this mediation > triad, you've set up a triad where ...if I'm reading it correctly...the > Immediate Interpretant of Quasi-Mind A [who is dealing with information > from the Dynamic Object] becomes an Immediate Object.... which becomes a > Dynamic Interpretant which functions as a NEW Representamen [Sy] . If we > consider that the DI is specific to the individual, then, .... > > I have a problem with this - because the function of the Representamen is > to absorb the particular and 'generalize it' into > commonalities/habits. That is, it doesn't duplicate the Dynamic > Interpretant but will ABSORB/ Transform it into commonalities. [Note: I am > referring to the Representamen in a mode of Thirdness not 1ns or 2ns]. > > 3] AND - this Representamen isn't 'stand-alone'; it's held by various > 'Quasi-minds'. The Representamen is embodied within an individual > Quasi-Mind. Your 'commens' Representamen [Sy] - isn't shown as embodied. > > 4] Then, despite this mediative act NOT being embodied, it seems to > function as its own triad of IO/R/II....Except that the content of the > First Quasi-Mind, A, within his DI..has become the content of the > Representamen of this mediative act [Sy]. ...and this Commens > semiosis provides a second Immediate Interpretant...which somehow becomes > both the Immediate Object AND the Dynamic Interpretant or Representamen > [Sz]...of Quasi-Mind B. > > So- if I read the diagramme correctly, an Immediate Interpretant is the > equivalent of an Immediate Object not within Quasi-Mind A but within the > Commens. And this Immediate Object is the equivalent of a Dynamic > Interpretant and also a Representamen of its own...and ..... > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > --------------------------------------- > > I might have missed the points. I think - possibly - I'm getting to > understand your diagramme but - I think the outline confuses what is going > on..And I have a problem with the 'equivalences'. > > I can see how Dynamic Interpretants of a collective become part of the > habits of a common Representamen. I can even see them as acting as > Immediate Objects in this process of habit-formation. > > I don't see how this common process can be 'stand-alone' [Your Commens]. > But perhaps that's just how the diagramme shows it...and this Commens is > really held within the Quasi-minds of the collective. > > 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 .
