Edwina, List: Analyzing the various "Signs within Signs" might be unavoidable eventually, especially if we end up going down the road of defining Dicisigns (i.e., natural propositions) as "complete Signs" and all other classes (except Arguments) as "incomplete Signs." However, right now it just muddies the waters further from my standpoint.
Your last statement, "Mind exists *within *matter," is problematic for me, because it maintains a distinction where Peirce insisted on continuity--"matter *is *effete mind." That is yet another can of worms that we probably should not reopen right now. Thanks, Jon S. On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 8:38 AM, Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca> wrote: > Jon, list - there are multiple semiosic actions going on 'at the same > time' so to speak. > > If we just take this one example of the loud sound/tree falling...whether > the Receiver is a bird or human - there are multiple semiosic actions > involved. > > 1] For both, there can be the 'rhematic iconic qualisign' [a feeling of > sound]. This would involve DO and IO and R. The neurological R. > > 2] For both, there can be a Rhematic indexical sinsign'..[a local, > non-intentional reaction to a local indexical stimuli...This would involve > DO, IO, R and II. Again, neurological. Here we just have the neurological > reaction..but note..even this neurological reaction could not appear > without there being neurological habits within the bird/human's systems > > 3] So, bringing in Thirdness, a Rhematic Indexical Legisign...which > involves that DO, IO, R and II. Here, the system acknowledges the habits of > formation of the human/bird. > > 4] With the human, I'd add: possibly, a Dicent Symbolic Legisign to > acknowledge that the human has symbolically named the DO. > > BUT - semiosic action 1 and 2 rest within 3. That is - my view is that > there is no such thing as a 'feeling' of redness or a feeling of sound - > existing outside of a morphological or material 'home'/form. Mind exists > within matter. > > Edwina > > On Mon 05/02/18 9:20 AM , Jon Alan Schmidt jonalanschm...@gmail.com sent: > > Gary R., List: > > Your observation that I tend to associate the concept of "Sign" with > something external first (e.g., the loud sound) and internal second (e.g., > the bird's neural pattern) is accurate. It seems to me that any adequate > model of semiosis must be able to take both kinds of Signs into account. > What I continue to find tricky in this particular discussion is where to > "locate" the collateral experience and habits of interpretation that come > into play when an external Sign is "translated" into an internal Sign. I > have some hints in mind now that I have started rereading "New Elements," > but nothing that I can explicate or defend just yet. > > Regards, > > Jon S. > > On Sun, Feb 4, 2018 at 10:06 PM, Gary Richmond <gary.richm...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> 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: Blocked image] >> >> 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 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: Blocked image] >>> >>> 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: Blocked image] >>>>> >>>>> [image: Blocked image] >>>>> >>>>> 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 .
