Correction: Oops. Said this just backward. I wrote, "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."

I *meant *to say that your emphasis seems to be on latter (the external
sign), mine on the internal (the cognitive sign that 'responds' to that
external sign as immediate object.

Sorry about that!

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 11:01 PM, Gary Richmond <gary.richm...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> 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 <(718)%20482-5690>*
>
> 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 .




Reply via email to