Von: "Edwina Taborsky" <tabor...@primus.ca>
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 <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.vase1. 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 Layman
----------------------------- 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 .
