BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}1]Jon - to me, the Representamen is an act of mediation; it
transforms the data from the IO [Immediate Object] into an

        So- to me, the loud sound is incoming sensate data; It doesn't act
as MIND, transforming this sound into some interpretation of it.

        I am, in the above, assuming that the Representamen is in a mode of
Thirdness [Mind]. For example, as

        O-R-I or a Rhematic Indexical Legisign, an individual interpretation
of local stimuli as referenced to a general rule.

        So- the bird's reaction/interpretation of the the habit of
         But- the Representamen can be in other modes.


        2] Now..let's see..what if it's instead in a mode of Firstness.

        this would have the triad [O-R-I] as a Rhematic Iconic Qualisign-
where all three parts of the Sign are in a mode of Firstness.
Peirce's example was that 'feeling of redness'; this example would be
a feeling of sound. A local and internal non-interpreted, non-describe
individual state.

        3] What if the Representamen were in a mode of Secondness. There are
three classes where the R is in a mode of Secondness:

        O-R-I   or 1-2-1 A Rhematic Iconic Sinsign. An individual diagram;
an iconic non-analyzed description of a sensation

        O-R-I or 2-2-1  A Rhematic Indexical Sinsign .  A spontaneous cry. a
local non-intentional reaction to a local and direct indexical

        O-R-I or 2-2-2- a Dicent Indexical Sinsign; a mechanical reaction.


        So - in the above - I could see that the Representamen could be in a
mode of a Rhematic Indexical Sinsign.


        But- in none of the above - do I define the loud sound as the
Representamen, since I maintain that its role is mediation.

 On Sun 04/02/18  7:13 PM , Jon Alan Schmidt
 Edwina, List:
 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?
 Jon S.  
 On Sun, Feb 4, 2018 at 5:15 PM, Edwina Taborsky  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
[2] 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, USAProfessional Engineer, Amateur
Philosopher, Lutheran [3] - [4] 

PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L 
to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to . To 
UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to with the 
line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at .

Reply via email to