Jon, list,
You said: On the contrary--those would be ten different Interpretants of the same Representamen. :-) I am sure you are right since you are now looking at the cartoon and not *vase*. A *Representamen* can be considered from *three formal points of view*, namely, first, as the substance of the representation, or the *Vehicle* of the *Meaning*, which is common to the three representamens of the triad, second, as the quasi-agent in the representation, conformity to which makes its *Truth*, that is, as the *Natural Object*, and third, as the quasi-patient in the representation, or that which modification in the representation makes its *Intelligence*, and this may be called the *Interpretant*. Thus, *in looking at a map, the map itself is the Vehicle*, the country represented is the *Natural Object*, and the idea excited in the mind is the *Interpretant*. Best, J On Tue, Feb 6, 2018 at 2:54 PM, Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca> wrote: > Jon - the sticking point is the Representamen. But please note - YOU have > informed us that the word 'vase' is a Representamen! > > The Representamen is, to me, the internal process of mediation that > transforms the input data from the DO/IO...and transforms it into an > Interpretant. I don't see that the Representamen 'represents the typed > word'. I see that it mediates/interprets that typed word so that I can > interpret it within the two steps of the II and DI. > > To me, the Representamen is NOT a 'thought-sign'. Such a term, to me, > could only refer to an Interpretant; i.e., something that is the result of > thought. > > To me, the Representamen is the process of MIND. It is 'thinking'. > > Edwina > > > > On Tue 06/02/18 3:35 PM , Jon Alan Schmidt jonalanschm...@gmail.com sent: > > Edwina, List: > > In the thread on "Collateral Experience and Habits of Interpretation," we > completely agreed on the second analysis of the bird example, with the > notable exception of how to define the Representamen. I honestly believe > that the same is true of the second analysis of the "vase" example. > > - The Dynamic Object (DO) is the typed word "vase." > - The Immediate Object (IO) is your apprehension of the typed word. > - The Representamen (R) is (my view) or includes (your view) your > thought-Sign that represents the typed word. > - The Immediate Interpretant (II) is the range of possible effects > that this thought-Sign may have on you. > - The Dynamic Interpretant (DI) is any actual effect that this > thought-Sign does have on you. > > Regards, > > Jon S. > > On Tue, Feb 6, 2018 at 2:18 PM, Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca> > wrote: > >> Jon - no, we don't agree on your first or second analysis. I totally and >> completely disagree with your view of the Repesentamen and indeed, of the >> semiosic process. >> >> I think we should stop. Wait and see if others agree with you - and I'm >> sure that many will do so. >> >> Edwina >> >> On Tue 06/02/18 3:08 PM , Jon Alan Schmidt jonalanschm...@gmail.com sent: >> >> Helmut, List: >> >> I wholeheartedly agree with you that different analyses will assign the >> same element to different Correlates. I tried to make that point with the >> bird example--the loud sound initially serves as a Representamen that >> stands for the falling of the tree, and then as a Dynamic Object for the >> bird's neural pattern that subsequently represents it. Likewise, the word >> "vase" initially served (for Edwina) as a Representamen that stood for my >> previous discussion with Gary R., and then as a Dynamic Object for her >> subsequent thought-Signs about it. Essentially, Edwina and I agree on >> the second analysis in each case (except for our very different definitions >> of "Representamen"), but she will not accept the first analysis. >> >> Thanks, >> >> Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA >> Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman >> www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt >> >> On Tue, Feb 6, 2018 at 1:54 PM, Helmut Raulien <h.raul...@gmx.de> wrote: >> >>> Edwina, Jon, >>> I think you are both right: When we talk about the word "vase" we have >>> seen written, this written word is the dynamic object. When somebody just >>> reads the word "vase", the word is a representamen. >>> In the first case, during the talk, there is a semiotic chain in which >>> interpretants become representamens, which again determine interpretants, >>> all the time being determined by the same object. This is a mediating >>> process, though not in one sign, but in a chain of signs. In the second >>> case one may ideationally confine the sign to the reader´s mind (and not to >>> the entire phaneron), and say, that the representamen in this case is not >>> the written word, but the primal sensation of the word in the reader´s mind >>> (its appearance in the primisense of his), and, stretch or not, call that a >>> mediating process. But if you don´t confine the sign to the reader´s mind, >>> but say it is an affair of the phaneron, you may say that the written word >>> is the representamen >>> (I am a representamen too: trying to mediate). >>> Best, >>> Helmut >>> >> > > > ----------------------------- > 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 .
