Edwina, List: ET: What is the functionality of putting an area of study, such as Jappy's work, into 'semeiotic' rather than 'phaneroscopy'? How does such a categorization affect the results of the study?
Why did Peirce develop a classification of the sciences that carefully distinguishes phaneroscopy from semeiotic? Primarily because their purposes are different, with the result that their principles are different. In fact, the principles of semeiotic depend upon the principles of phaneroscopy, while the latter *do not* depend upon the former. Therefore, the proper interpretation of the results of phaneroscopic study is different from the proper interpretation of the results of semeiotic study. ET: My understanding is that pure Firstness is simply the sensation of X No, sensation is a *physical *process and therefore a manifestation of 2ns. Pure 1ns is a *quality* of feeling, as it is in itself without reference to anything else; not any *actual *feeling, as it is experienced and distinguished from other feelings. Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt On Tue, Jun 15, 2021 at 11:34 AM Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca> wrote: > List > > I have several comments > > 1] First, a question to Gary R and John Sowa: What is the functionality of > putting an area of study, such as Jappy's work, into 'semeiotic' rather > than 'phaneroscopy'? How does such a categorization affect the results of > the study? > > 2] With reference to Bakhtin, I wouldn't define him as a semiotician > but put him in the camp of semiology - and there's a huge difference > between the two. > > 3] I'd have a different interpretation of Cathy's example. Since the > semiotic interaction is dialogic, then, the sensation of the categories and > indeed, their 'mode of being' [8.328] rests within the interaction. So, I > don't understand how a frame and canvas is, in itself, is a hypoicon of the > Mona Lisa. I, as the receiver n this semiotic dialogue, could only react to > the reality of what is in front of me: a frame and canvas. > > My understanding of the hypoicon is that the received sensation, if a > duplicate of X, is an image. If it represents the parts of X, then it is a > diagram. If it is representative of X, then it is a metaphor. But in all > cases, X must exist. In the first case, X is a frame and canvas; that is > what my senses receive; there is no inherent potentiality to 'be' the Mona > Lisa. > > My understanding is that pure Firstness is simply the sensation of X - and > whether it is a frame or picture is not relevant. After that first > sensation, the other categories move into their function; so, an > interpretant in the mode of 2-1 [rhematic indexical] might see a diagram. > And adding in the knowledge base of Thirdness, I could come up with 3-1 and > a rhematic symbol. > > 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 UNSUBSCRIBE PEIRCE-L in the SUBJECT LINE of the message and nothing in the body. More at https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/help/user-signoff.html . ► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary Richmond; and co-managed by him and Ben Udell.
