Helmut, List:

In my view, we can indeed take the loud sound to be the Representamen, as I
initially suggested--noting again that my definition differs significantly
from Edwina's.  This leads to a different analysis in which the Dynamic
Object is the falling of the tree that *causes *the sound, with the other
terms reassigned accordingly.  Sign-action *is *mediation, even though the
Sign itself is indeed the *First *Correlate of the genuine triadic relation
that has the Object as its Second Correlate and the Interpretant as its
Third Correlate (cf. EP 2:290; 1903).


Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman
www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt

On Sun, Feb 4, 2018 at 1:51 PM, Helmut Raulien <h.raul...@gmx.de> wrote:

> Edwina, isn´t mediation (thirdness) a matter of the interpretant
> (thirdness), not the representamen? Well,  I see representamen, object,
> interpretant as 1ns, 2ns, 3ns, which perhaps you don´t. Ok, representamen
> is also the sign, which is thirdness, because it includes all. This is
> difficult. Maybe the solution lies in the semiosis, when the interpretant
> (3ns) becomes a representamen (1ns) again? I don´t know. Have to ponder,
> get back later. Or do you have an idea what I am missing?
> Best,
> Helmut
> 04. Februar 2018 um 20:19 Uhr
> *Von:* "Edwina Taborsky" <tabor...@primus.ca>
> Helmut - I'll disagree. You are missing the triadic semiosic process of
> O-R-I. You are missing the process of mediation between the Object and the
> Interpretant - which is the action carried out by the Representamen.
> Therefore - the Representamen is not 'the loud sound' -
> Edwina
> On Sun 04/02/18 2:13 PM , "Helmut Raulien" h.raul...@gmx.de sent:
> Jon, Edwina, List,
> I think:
> - The representamen is the loud sound, and everything connected with it in
> the situation (as the representamen is also the sign, so including all
> following points too)
> - The dynamical object is that, what the bird initially feels to be the
> source of the loud sound, as this (imaginary) source really (not imaginary)
> is, and as it is in the concepts of all other birds and all other creatures,
> - The immediate object is what is initially arisen (imagined) in the
> bird´s mind by the loud sound for being its source,
> - The immediate interpretant is the reason the bird assumes having to fly
> away,
> - The dynamical interpretant is really avoiding the (still imaginary)
> danger by flying away,
> - The final interpretant is the real benefit achieved by the bird, defined
> by what would really have happened if the bird had not flown away.
> This was a quick shot. Now I guess, maybe there is a pattern of
> combinations of "imaginary" and "real"...
> Best,
> Helmut
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 .

Reply via email to