Jon S, list, Perhaps I am making more of Peirce's comment regarding 'a sign of a sign' than you think is justified (one more individual, the other more general as I see it). It seems to me that your emphasis in consideration of the Rhematic Indexical Sinsign on it's being *existent *is but half the story. You seem to me to look at the sign from 'without', while I tend to look at it from 'within'.
But I'll reflect on all of this. I still am thinking that, for me, human semiosis might help clarify these matters better than the non-human, non-cognitive one. I see you as emphasizing the external, existential sign, whereas I always tend to turn to the cognitive one (as at least springboard). In "a sign of a sign" your emphasis seems to me to be the former, mine the latter. Best, Gary R [image: Gary Richmond] *Gary Richmond* *Philosophy and Critical Thinking* *Communication Studies* *LaGuardia College of the City University of New York* *718 482-5690* On Sun, Feb 4, 2018 at 10:45 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt <jonalanschm...@gmail.com> wrote: > Gary R., List: > > Of course the Sign *can *be within the bird; what I said was that I think > it does not necessarily *have to* be be within the bird. > > I have tried to avoid human semiosis in this conversation, because I > suspect that Edwina and I will have many more disagreements once we go in > that direction. > > In a Rhematic Indexical Sinsign, the Sign itself is an Existent > (individual), not a Necessitant (general); so I do not understand what > point you are making about this. > > Regards, > > 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 9:30 PM, Gary Richmond <gary.richm...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> Jon, Edwina, list, >> >> Jon wrote: >> >> I still think that the IO-R-II triad is within the *Sign*, not >> necessarily within the bird (Receiver), but we can set that disagreement >> aside for now. More to the point--in your view, does semiosis *only *take >> place within the bird? Is there no *other *semiosis going on, in which >> the loud sound plays the role of the Representamen? >> me. >> >> >> Cannot the Sign be "within the bird," Jon? It seems to me that there is >> perhaps a "sign of a sign" situation going on here. The IO-R-II is within >> the sign which is within the bird (or the person). I think I might agree >> with Edwina (if I understand this correctly), that the Sign of central >> importance to our analysis, even if it doesn't "*only* take place within >> the bird," indeed *does* takes place within the bird and the sign (of >> which it is, perhaps, a "sign of a sign"--but that's another analysis). >> (Btw, I think that perhaps it's better for the purposes of this analysis to >> consider human semiosis as I think this might help simplify and clarify the >> analysis because we can't really know the mind of a bird although we can >> take a stab at the mind of a man/woman). >> >> Jon wrote: >> >> How can the Representamen be classified as *general *(Legisign or Type) >> in a scenario where an *individual *sound leads an *individual *bird to >> the *individual *action of flight? I thought you were saying in your >> previous post that it is a Rhematic Indexical Sinsign, which makes much >> more sense to me. >> >> >> But aren't we *also* concerned, Jon, with individual semiosis? "A *rhematic >> indexical sinsign* (such as a cry in the street) is a sign that directs >> attention to the object by which it is caused." CSP >> >> Wouldn't this 'work' for *any* bird say in a flock of birds? >> >> OK, hazy thinking for now. But circling around this seems to be of >> potential value imo, at least for me. >> >> Best, >> >> Gary R >> >> [image: Gary Richmond] >> >> *Gary Richmond* >> *Philosophy and Critical Thinking* >> *Communication Studies* >> *LaGuardia College of the City University of New York* >> *718 482-5690 <(718)%20482-5690>* >> >>>
----------------------------- 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 .