Edwina, List: ET: I have always [unlike Jon] included the DO as necessary within the semiosic process.
I have always *clearly affirmed* that the DO is "necessary within the semiosic process"; what I have denied is that the DO is *part of the Sign*. We also disagree on what Peirce meant when he said that the IO and II are "internal"; I hold that they are internal *to the Sign*, not "to the Receiver/Site B - or whatever you want to call it." Based on my understanding of Peirce's writings, I would call the latter the Interpreter, or the interpreting Quasi-mind. These differences in our views are well-documented on the List, so there is no need to rehash them; I mainly just wanted to correct that one misstatement. Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt On Sun, Jun 24, 2018 at 5:20 PM, Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca> wrote: > Gary F, list: > > I am saying that I understand [I think] your interpretation of the rheme > as lacking an Immediate Object- and it makes sense to me - which is why I > said it was a logical analysis. After all, if the semiosic interaction is > not direct [indexical] - then, one does indeed have to ask: Where's the > DO? It could be hidden! And how could there be an IO? But- if a rheme > [Interpretant in a mode of Firstness] also exists - then, one has to ask: > how did such an Interpretant emerge? What's its informational base? > Therefore - - my question has been whether the informational stimulus for > this rheme can be found in the future of the semiosic process. This would > enable abduction. I note that you have not replied to this question. > > As for your rejection of the triad of IO/R/II - which you say is > non-Peircean, I reject your conclusion. Since we know that the Peircean > semiosis is triadic - and is usually defined as O-R-I > [Object/Representamen/Interpretant] > - then, to clarify this set into its six parts: DO-IO-R-II-DI-FI is quite > valid- and most certainly has been thoroughly and extensively analyzed by > Peirce. And- to separate this set of six 'nodes' into the external and > internal processes is equally valid. Peirce himself was quite specific > about the fact of external and internal processes. The set of IO-R-II is > INTERNAL to the Receiver/Site B - or whatever you want to call it in this > semiosic interaction. I consider the full semiosic Sign - which thus is > dialogic and interactional - to be this full set - made up of > three internal, [IO/R/II]; the other three are external processes. > > But - my definition of 'the Sign' is not confined to this internal set of > IO/R/II. I have always [unlike Jon] included the DO as necessary within the > semiosic process. There need not be a DI - at this current time. And there > need not be an FI - at this current time. However, the semiosic process > must, at some time, provide for all aspects of the full six parts of the > semiosic process. > > 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 .
