BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px; }
Jon, list - thanks for your comments. A rapid response:
1) The reason I stick to the three relations - see Peirce's
8.335,8.337 comments on the relations to the Dynamic Object,
Relations to the Interpretant..but the reason is that each of the
three 'spikes' so to speak, can be in a different modal category. So,
in a rhematic indexical legisign, the Representamen spoke can be in
Thirdness; the relation to the Dynamic Object in a mode of
Secondness; the relation to the Dy. Interpretant in a mode of
Firstness. That's why I refer to relations in the plural. These
interactions most certainly are NOT independent - and my use of the
plural of RelationS doesn't imply their independence. Instead, it
implies their modal differentiation within this singular semiosic
interaction.
2) The problem I have with the linear image of the movement from DO
to DI...and Peirce often uses it, which is one relation with three
correlates, is that I also am interested in the morphological result
of the semiosis. Not simply in the passing of X via Y to Z. But the
physiological FORM. That is - referring to my oft-quoted 4.551 'Mind
..in crystal, in the work of bees'...etc... I am considering that the
Sign, that triad, takes on a FORM. This FORM is the full Sign. So, a
cell - let's say a single cell - is the semiosic Form, a Sign. This
is the result of the interaction of the Representamen HABITS
interacting with many Dynamic Objects [water, nutrients, chemicals,
etc etc]...which are then transformed via the HABITS held within the
Representamen into the Dynamic Interpretant - that CELL. BUT - all
three parts of this whole FORM/SIGN must be operative in this
semiosic process: The input from the various multiple Dynamic
Interpretants.....transformed via the general rules held by the
Representamen....resulting in the Dynamic Interpretant FORM of the
whole system...that particular cell.
Edwina
--
This message is virus free, protected by Primus - Canada's
largest alternative telecommunications provider.
http://www.primus.ca
On Wed 12/04/17 6:33 PM , Jon Alan Schmidt [email protected]
sent:
Edwina, List:
ET: A large issue is the definition of 'sign'. Is it the
representamen alone? Or is it the triad of the Immediate
Object-Represntamen-Immediate Interpretant? Or is it even larger -
and includes the Dynamic Object?
I believe that our recent joint resolution to use "Sign" only for
the internal Oi-R-Ii triad could go a long way toward clearing up
this particular terminological difficulty. The external Dynamic
Object is not part of the Sign itself, it is something distinct that
is in a single triadic relation with both the Sign and the external
Dynamic Interpretant.
ET: My problem is that I can't figure out what ONE triadic Relation
means. I can understand the 'umbrella image' of the triad [1.347],
which is something like a three spoked umbrella: -
Links:
------
[1] http://www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt
[2] http://twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
[3]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'[email protected]\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
[4] http://www.primus.ca
-----------------------------
PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L
to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to [email protected] . To
UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] with the
line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
