BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}Jon, list
The four letters that you provided were just that: four letters.
There was no semiosic process/action. Jon Awbrey correctly pointed
this out to you.
The semiosic process is triadic - and the Repesentamen is not a
'thing'; it is an integral part of a semiosic process which is one of
RELATIONS.
You seem to see the Repesentamen as the embodiment of the
Interpretant. No, it's the relation of mediation between the Object
and Interpretant.
Edwina
On Tue 06/02/18 9:55 AM , Jon Alan Schmidt jonalanschm...@gmail.com
sent:
List:
Although I anticipated Edwina's answer in light of our past
exchanges, I am sincerely astonished that no one else (so far)
considers the bare word "vase" to be a Representamen, because it
seems obvious to me that Peirce would have done so without
hesitation. Surely any English-speaker familiar with it recognizes
it instantly and associates it with its general meaning; i.e., there
is an Interpretant, contrary to Gary R.'s analysis.
The fact that someone who does not speak English would not
recognize it is irrelevant. For something to be a Representamen, it
is sufficient that an Interpretant is possible; i.e., every Sign has
an Immediate Interpretant as its "peculiar interpretability" (SS 111;
1909), but need not actually produce a Dynamic Interpretant.
CSP: A Representamen is the First Correlate of a triadic relation,
the Second Correlate being termed its Object, and the possible Third
Correlate being termed its Interpretant, by which triadic relation
the possible Interpretant is determined to be the First Correlate of
the same triadic relation to the same Object, and for some possible
Interpretant. (EP 2:290; 1903, emphases added)
The lack of a semiotic context is precisely what makes a common
noun by itself a Type (Legisign), rather than a Token (Sinsign). As
a Rheme, it is indeed merely "a Sign of qualitative possibility" (EP
2:292; 1903), but it is still a Sign.
Regards,
Jon S.
On Tue, Feb 6, 2018 at 8:53 AM, Jon Alan Schmidt wrote:
List:
This thread is for discussion of the various responses to my initial
post on "Representamen" (reproduced below). If you have not done so
already, please read that post and provide your own answers in that
thread before looking at any of the other replies, or anything else
in this thread.
Thanks,
Jon S.
On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 9:13 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt wrote:
List:
With your kind indulgence, I would like to try conducting a little
experiment/survey. Before reading anyone else's replies to this post
(including my own), consider the following, and then answer a couple
of questions about it.
vase
1. Is the above a Representamen?2. Either way, briefly explain
your answer. 3. If so, what are its Dynamic and Immediate Objects?
The point is not to start any arguments about our different
analyses, but simply to see what diversity of views we turn out to
have. With that in mind, I also humbly request that we all refrain
from commenting on each other's responses here; instead, if you wish
to engage in that kind of discussion, please start another thread for
it.
Thanks,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USAProfessional Engineer, Amateur
Philosopher, Lutheran Laymanwww.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt [3] -
twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt [4]
Links:
------
[1]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'jonalanschm...@gmail.com\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
[2]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'jonalanschm...@gmail.com\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
[3] http://www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt
[4] http://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
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
