Yes, again, we have very different definitions of "Representamen." Just to
clarify--are you saying that in your view, the loud sound *cannot *be
treated as the Representamen in *any *semiotic analysis of this scenario?
If so, why not?
On Sun, Feb 4, 2018 at 5:15 PM, Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca> wrote:
> I would disagree. The falling of the tree is a full Sign [O-R-I]....with
> the actual fall as the Dynamic Interpretant. The wind-taking-down-the-tree
> might by a Dynamic Object to the tree...which then reacts by falling [DI].
> But within the bird, what affects the senses of the bird - is that loud
> sound. That is the external Dynamic Object to that situation. The Immediate
> Object is whatever sensual data is felt within the bird from that sound.
> The Representamen is a process of mediating this sensate data into an
> interpretation [II and DI].
> On Sun 04/02/18 4:08 PM , Jon Alan Schmidt jonalanschm...@gmail.com sent:
> 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
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