Freitag, 02. März 2018 um 21:49 Uhr
Von: "Edwina Taborsky" <tabor...@primus.ca>
1] My problem with your terms is that you use 'sign' to refer only to the mediate node in the semiosic triad; the Representamen. Where and how does the triad enter into your understanding of semiosis?
2. I understand the term of 'symbol' to refer to the Relation between the Representamen and the Dynamic Object, such that this Relation sets up a triadic semiosic process of conceptualization: i.e., "In respect to their relations to their dynamic objects, I divide signs into Icons, Indices and Symbols" 8.335. .
..."I define a Symbol as a sign which is determined by its dynamic objects only in the sense that it will be so interpreted. It thus depends either upon a convention, a habit, or a natural disposition of its interpretant or of the field of its interpretant 8.335...
and thus - the Relation between the Representamen and the DO is in a mode of Thirdness and the Representamen in such an interaction functions within Thirdness - as a Legisign. That is - I see the Symbol as a Relational function of the triad, not as an integral component of the 'Sign/representamen'.
3. I don't read the Interpretant section the same way as you do. There are three Interpretants: Immediate, Dynamic and Final. IF, in the terms you use, the Sign is that mediate node in the O-R-I semiosic triad, then - none of the three Interpretants can be that mediate process.
Peirce says" that I have already noted that a Sign has an Object and an Interpretant, the latter being that which the Sign produces in the Quasi-mind that is the Interpreter by determining the latter to a feeling, to an exertion, or to a Sign, which determination is the Interpretant" (CP 4.536; 1906).
I read the above that the Quasi-mind is the INTERPRETER. Not the Interpretant. And the semiosic process that is ongoing via the interaction between the Dynamic Object-Immediate Object-Representamen...is producing in 'the Quasi-mind/Interpreter....a feeling. Or an action/exertion. Or - Thirdness/a concept...all of which can be expressed as 'the Interpretant'.
4. And I read this differently from you: " For any set of Signs which are so connected that a complex of two of them can have one interpretant, must be Determinations of one Sign which is a Quasi-mind" (CP 4.550; 1906).
I read it as a network of triads - where at least two of them have one Interpretant - i.e., their 'actual effects are in effective interconnection' 4.550ff -
The result of the semiosic process among a number of Agents/Interpreters.... , the Dynamic Interpretant - are connected. This relates to [a] a shared mediate Representamen such that the Interpretants are all 'determinations of a common Representamen - and a shared Mind, i.e., a Quasi-mind among all networked agents/Interpreters in this semiosic interconnection.
On Fri 02/03/18 3:04 PM , Jon Alan Schmidt jonalanschm...@gmail.com sent:
1. Please read more carefully--I stated that all concepts are Symbols, not that all Signs are Symbols. Obviously Icons and Indices are also Signs.
2. Peirce explicitly distinguished three kinds of Interpretants, only one of which is a Sign. "I have already noted that a Sign has an Object and an Interpretant, the latter being that which the Sign produces in the Quasi-mind that is the Interpreter by determining the latter to a feeling, to an exertion, or to a Sign, which determination is the Interpretant" (CP 4.536; 1906).
3. Peirce explicitly defined a Quasi-mind as a Sign that is a complex of Signs. "For any set of Signs which are so connected that a complex of two of them can have one interpretant, must be Determinations of one Sign which is a Quasi-mind" (CP 4.550; 1906).
----------------------------- 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