BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}Jon - I had no recognition of the word as associated with a
container for flowers. I associated it with your discussion with
Gary R.
Then - when you specifically asked the question: Is it a
Representamen - I then came up with the conclusion that, no, the Word
was a Dynamic Object.
I disagree with your understanding of the Representamen. I maintain
that it is a process of mediation -an action of transformation, using
its Mind knowledge, and not a 'thing' that 'stands for' something
else. I think you are reducing the triad to a set of dyadic
relations.
On the contrary, the representamen is an action almost of
creation.."it creates in the mind of that person an equivalent sign,
or perhaps a more developed sign'. 2.228.....which is the
Interpretant...which can carry on this knowledge further.
You will note that in the ten classes, the Representamen refers to a
generality and not a specificity. And 6/10 are in the mode of
Thirdness.
I don't see the point of this discussion, since you and I are both
rather firm in our understandings of the Peircean triad and the
nature of the Representamen.
Edwina
On Tue 06/02/18 12:10 PM , Jon Alan Schmidt jonalanschm...@gmail.com
sent:
Edwina, List:
I am not asking about your analytical explanation after the fact,
which I acknowledge is very different from mine. I am asking about
your experience upon seeing the word "vase" all by itself, in that
moment of time. Just to confirm--your claim is that the very first
thing that instantly entered your mind was not recognition of it as
an English word and association of it with containers for flowers,
but instead the specific thought, "A Dynamic Object." Is that right?
We agree that no Subject is "a separate free-standing 'thing'"; all
Subjects are in relations with other Subjects. However, it is
important to maintain the distinction between Subjects as Correlates
and the relations in which they stand to each other. It is
manifestly false that I "have no relational process at all," such
that "the Representamen, akin to the Saussurian signified,
re-presents the Dynamic Object." On the contrary, I have maintained
over and over that the Representamen stands for its Object to its
Interpretant in a genuine (irreducible) triadic relation.
Regards,
Jon S.
On Tue, Feb 6, 2018 at 10:43 AM, Edwina Taborsky 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
[2] 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 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 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(\'tabor...@primus.ca\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
[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 .
