Gary R., List: I am shifting this exchange to the new thread where I posted the diagram.
I would not (yet) say that the IO and II are *sufficient *to constitute the Sign; there may still be some remainder when they are analytically distinguished from it. However, I have come to realize that we should *not *use the term "Representamen" for that leftover part, because Peirce never did--or even came close to doing so. I do not understand why you find it peculiar that only one of the three Interpretants is internal to the Sign. After all, only one of the two Objects is internal to the Sign. Moreover, not *every *Interpretant of a Sign is "a more developed version of that self-same Sign"; in *some *cases, the DI is a feeling, and in others, it is an exertion (cf. CP 4.536; 1906). Even when the DI *is *a Sign, it is a *different *Sign from the one for which it serves as the Interpretant--i.e., it is external to that *previous *Sign. As for the FI, since it is a *would-be* that need not *actually *come to pass, it *cannot *be internal to the Sign. I am speaking somewhat loosely here, because semiosis is a *continuous *process; we can break it down into these discrete stages only for the sake of analysis. As you may remember, the notion of overlapping was more apparent in my earlier diagrams, in which I tried to represent the three Quasi-minds involved in any instance of concrete semiosis--the Utterer, the Interpreter, and the Commens as their intersection. Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt <http://www.linkedin.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt> - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 7:33 PM, Gary Richmond <gary.richm...@gmail.com> wrote: > Jon, list, > > After studying again the attachment of your model of semiosic > determination you resent, I'm beginning to better understand what confused > me about it earlier. I would recommend that anyone interested in this topic > take another look at it as it has (at least for me) been much clarified > through this recent discussion, but only, as it were, 'retrospectively'. My > quarter hour or so study of your diagram today, again in light of this > threaded discussion, finally allowed me to grasp what I hadn't quite > comprehended about your model earlier. > > So, if I understand you correctly: 1. the Object certainly yet determines > 2. the Sign which 3. determines possible Interpretant Signs. > > However, in your model 1. the Object which determines the Sign is the > Dynamic Object, and 2. both the Immediate Object and the Immediate > Interpretant are internal to the Sign and in some way constitute--*are *the > Sign--which Sign 3. determines the other Interpretants. Is this correct? > > If so then there is the peculiarity that one of the Interpretants, the Ii, > is internal to the Sign while the other possible Interpretants (the Id and > If) are external to it. That the two Interpretants other than the Ii are > diagrammed outside the Sign now becomes for me somewhat problematic since > an Interpretant is itself a more developed version of that self-same Sign > albeit tending toward meaning. > > 1909 | Essays on Meaning. Preface | MS [R] 640:9 > > By the *Interpretant* of a Sign is meant all that the Sign can signify, > mean, or itself convey of new, in contradistinction to what it may > stimulate the observer to find out otherwise, as for example, by new > experience, or by recollecting former experiences. > > > and > > 1908 | Letters to Lady Welby | SS 83 > > It is usual and proper to distinguish two Objects of a Sign, the Mediate > without, and the Immediate within the Sign. Its Interpretant is all that > the Sign conveys: acquaintance with its Object must be gained by > collateral experience. > > > At the moment I think that there ought to be some kind of diagrammatic > overlapping of the Sign and the more developed Sign which it determines, > namely, its Interpretant Sign. Now the Id and If appear to be outside the > Sign as much as is the DO, and I don't think that's quite right. > > Best, > > Gary > > *Gary Richmond* > *Philosophy and Critical Thinking* > *Communication Studies* > *LaGuardia College of the City University of New York* > *718 482-5690* >
----------------------------- 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 .
