I did not get past the first three letters and I took it to be an email cold start no context -- Interesting to see how tenacious the context was. No one thinks the same.
amazon.com/author/stephenrose On Tue, Feb 6, 2018 at 11:43 AM, Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca> wrote: > Jon, list > > No- my instant reaction was that it was: A Dynamic Object. > > I did not go through a semiosic triadic process...which would be to move > that DO..into an IO/Representamen/...and then II and DI. > > The Representamen as a 'subject' is a mediative agent. It has an active > role in mediating from the raw data of the Dynamic Object into the > subjective understanding of that raw data as an Immediate and Dynamic > Interpretant. That's why it is a 'subject'; but it is not, in itself, a > separate free-standing 'thing'. > > Yes - I'm aware of your reading of the Peircean triad and I disagree with > it. You have no relational process at all. All you have is that the > Representamen, akin to the Saussurian signified, re-presents the Dynamic > Object. But it doesn't. > > Again, my reading of Peirce, which, I think maintains the semiosic process > as a set of triadic relations, is that the Representamen is MIND; it, using > its laws, its habits, takes that sensate data from the Dynamic Object and > 'understands it'.....to present that data as an Interpretant. In this case, > the DO is the actual vase [word or object]. The Representamen takes that > input data...and using its memory/habits/laws....'understands it to > 're-present it' [if using those terms enables you to better understand how > I see it].....within the Immediate and Dynamic Interpretants. > > But the Representamen is not a stand-alone agent. It is MIND and functions > only within the semiosic process, within the triad. It acts as the > mediation transforming the raw hard sensate data of the DO...to the > 'understanding of it'...within the DI. > > That's my explanation. So very very different from yours! > > Edwina > > > > On Tue 06/02/18 10:48 AM , Jon Alan Schmidt jonalanschm...@gmail.com sent: > > Edwina, List: > > As an English-speaker, did you not instantly recognize that sequence of > four letters as a word? Did you not proceed to associate it right away > with various kinds of containers for flowers? If you did, then there was a > semiosic process/action that took place in that moment of time. > > In order for us to experience a relation, there must be Subjects to serve > as the Correlates within that relation. According to Peirce's > straightforward definition that I quoted below from EP 2:290, the > Representamen is not (necessarily) a "thing," but it certainly is a Subject > or Correlate. > > In other words, on my reading of Peirce, the Representamen is not the > semiosic process/action, and it is not the triadic Sign-relation, and it > is not "the embodiment of the Interpretant" (whatever that means); > rather, the Representamen is anything that stands for something else (its > Object) to something else (its Interpretant) within a triadic > Sign-relation. > > Regards, > > Jon S. > > On Tue, Feb 6, 2018 at 9:27 AM, Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca> > wrote: > >> 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 < >> jonalanschm...@gmail.com> 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 < >>> jonalanschm...@gmail.com> 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, USA >>>> Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman >>>> www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - 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 > . > > > > > >
----------------------------- 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 .
