Edwina, List: Again, I do not expect to convince you; I am only doing exactly what you have said in the past that I should do, which is to note our disagreement and then make the case for my own view.
Where do you see me "equating the Representamen with the Interpretant"? Regards, Jon S. On Tue, Feb 6, 2018 at 2:16 PM, Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca> wrote: > Jon - stop. You haven't convinced me. I repeat; when I saw the written > word - that word was a Dynamic Object. It then 'moved' into my Mind as an > IO, where my knowledge base [Representamen] came up with several > Interpretants. > > You are equating the Repesentamen with the Interpretant. > > Please - there's no point in this discussion. I don't like to be rude and > ignore you - so, I suggest that you wait and see what others have to say > about your request. > > Edwina > > On Tue 06/02/18 2:57 PM , Jon Alan Schmidt jonalanschm...@gmail.com sent: > > Edwina, List: > > JAS: Initially the bare word "vase" stood for my previous discussion > with Gary R. to your interpreting mind. > ET: The first time - my Interpretant of it was that it referred to your > discussion with Gary R. > > I read these two statements as saying exactly the same thing--the word > "vase" was a Representamen whose Dynamic Object was my previous discussion > with Gary R. How can a Dynamic Object, as a Dynamic Object, "refer to" > something other than itself? That is precisely what a Representamen (or > Sign) does. Consider the following passage, where I have taken the > liberty of substituting the word "vase" for the sentence, "Napolean was > lethargic." > > CSP: A Sign is a Cognizable that, on the one hand, is so determined > (i.e., specialized, bestimmt) by something other than itself, called its > Object ... while, on the other hand, it so determines some actual or > potential Mind, the determination whereof I term the Interpretant created > by the Sign, that that Interpreting Mind is therein determined mediately by > the Object ... The person who interprets that [word] (or any other Sign > whatsoever) must be determined by the Object of it through collateral > observation quite independently of the action of the Sign. Otherwise he > will not be determined to [the] thought of that object … For [the word's > Object] cannot determine his mind unless [it] calls his attention to the > right [kind of thing] and that can only be if, independently, [a] habit has > been established in him by which that word calls up a variety of attributes > of [vases]. Much the same thing is true in regard to any sign. (EP > 2:492-493; 1909) > > > From this, it seems that collateral observation is what develops in the > interpreter the habit of interpretation that enables that person to interpret > the Sign as standing for or referring to (i.e., denoting) its Object. In > other words, one might think that both collateral observation and habits of > interpretation pertain to the Interpretant, not the Object or the > Representamen. However, Peirce went on to say the following in the very > next paragraph, this time substituting the word "vase" for the sentence, > "Hamlet was mad." > > CSP: All that part of the understanding of the Sign which the > Interpreting Mind has needed collateral observation for is outside the > Interpretant. I do not mean by "collateral observation" acquaintance with > the system of signs. What is so gathered is not COLLATERAL. It is on the > contrary the prerequisite for getting any idea signified by the Sign. But > by collateral observation, I mean previous acquaintance with what the Sign > denotes. Thus if the Sign be the [word "vase,"] to understand what this > means one must know that [vases are containers for flowers and/or topics of > discussions; one must have seen [vases] or read about them; and it will be > all the better if one specifically knows (and need not be driven to > presume ) what [the utterer's] notion of [vases] was. All that is > collateral observation and is no part of the Interpretant. (EP 2:494; > 1909, bold added) > > > Here he clarifies that "collateral observation is outside the > Interpretant," and in case we missed it the first time, he reiterates that > "collateral observation … is no part of the Interpretant." However, he > also emphasizes that "acquaintance with the system of signs" is not > collateral, > but rather "the prerequisite for getting any idea signified by the Sign." > Hence someone's familiarity with the English language--in this case, > including the word "vase" as one Sign within that system of Signs--is not > collateral, > and pertains to the Interpretant. However, "previous acquaintance with > what the Sign denotes"--in this case, both actual and imagined vases, or > (in your experience) my previous discussion with Gary R.--must come from > collateral observation, or the "knowledge base of the agent," and pertains > only to the Object. As collateral, it is not "located" within the > Representamen itself. > > Regards, > > Jon S. > > On Tue, Feb 6, 2018 at 1:21 PM, Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca> > wrote: > >> Jon - NO. NO. >> >> It may have been a Representamen according to YOUR analysis. But it was, >> right from the start, to me - a Dynamic Object. >> >> The first time - my Interpretant of it was that it referred to your >> discussion with Gary R. >> >> The second time - my Interpretant of it was that it was just a word. >> >> BUT - in both cases, it was a DYNAMIC OBJECT. What changed was my >> Interpretant...which changed according to the thought processes of my >> mediating Representamen. >> >> And I disagree with you. The Representamen mediates. Of course it is >> 'something' that mediates'. What else could it be other than a >> force-which-mediates. What is this something?? The knowledge base of >> the agent which is involved with the Dynamic Object. So, the knowledge held >> within the Representamen's habits...mediates the sensate data from the >> external 'Dynamic Object' and transforms it into the Interpretant. >> >> Jon - we are not getting anywhere. I think you should wait and see if >> others want to get into this discussion of yours. >> >> Edwina >> >> On Tue 06/02/18 2:13 PM , Jon Alan Schmidt jonalanschm...@gmail.com sent: >> >> Edwina, List: >> >> Initially the bare word "vase" stood for my previous discussion with >> Gary R. to your interpreting mind. Hence it was indeed a >> Representamen according to my analysis, but with a different Dynamic Object >> than I anticipated. It was only in your subsequent analysis that you >> classified it as a Dynamic Object, presumably with respect to your >> thought-Signs about it. >> >> Obviously, I agree with Helmut's reading of Peirce on how a Representamen >> (or Sign) is repeatedly defined. It is not a process or action, it is a >> Subject or Correlate that is involved in the process or action of >> semiosis. Per your own quote (CP 2.311), the Representamen is something >> that mediates, not the act of mediation. >> >> Regards, >> >> Jon S. >> >> On Tue, Feb 6, 2018 at 1:07 PM, Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca> >> wrote: >> >>> Helmut - no, Peirce's term was not 'medium' which simply means a >>> carrying-agent. His term was mediation. >>> >>> "A Representamen mediates between its Interpretant and its Object" 2.311 >>> >>> Edwina >>> >>> On Tue 06/02/18 1:37 PM , "Helmut Raulien" h.raul...@gmx.de sent: >>> >>> Edwina, List, >>> now I have read the entries in the Commens dictionary about >>> "representamen" and "sign" (in some places Peirce says, that a sign is a >>> special kind of representamen, the one that creates an interpretant in a >>> human mind, in another place he says that both are synonyms). You wrote: >>> >>> "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." >>> >>> But in many places Peirce writes, that a sign is anything that mediates >>> between an object and an interpretant. "Anything" may be a thing, may it >>> not? Why not the word "vase"? And it is a medium, not a process of >>> mediation. It is determined by the object and determines the interpretant. >>> Peirce writes this many times, and it does not mean that these two roles of >>> the sign (patient and agent, being determined and determining) are two >>> dyadic relations fully representing the triadic relation by being products >>> of reduction out of it. >>> Best, >>> Helmut >>> 06. Februar 2018 um 19:02 Uhr >>> Von: "Edwina Taborsky" >>> >>> 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. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 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 .
