Edwina, List:

1.  My problem with your terms is that you consistently use them in ways
that deviate significantly from what I understand to be Peirce's own
usage.  In any case, we both agreed about a year ago to use "Sign" for the
internal triad of Immediate Object, Representamen, and Immediate
Interpretant.  Lately you have been insisting that "Sign" also *includes*
the Dynamic Object, rather than being content with the affirmation--which
no one is disputing--that every Sign *requires *a Dynamic Object to
determine it.  It has also become apparent that what you mean by
"Representamen" is much closer to what I mean by "Quasi-mind" than anything

2.  No one is disputing that the classification of a Sign as a Symbol
depends entirely on its relation to its (Dynamic) Object being a
Necessitant (3ns).

3.  No one is disputing that the Quasi-mind is the interpreter.  CP 4.536
states that the Interpretant is what the Sign *produces* in the
interpreter; i.e., the *effect *of the Sign on the interpreting
Quasi-mind.  It further states that this effect--this *determination *of
the interpreter--is to a feeling, to an exertion, or to a Sign.
Furthermore, since this is an *actual *effect, it is clearly the
*Dynamic *Interpretant
of the Sign.

4.  What I quoted from CP 4.550 is about multiple Signs that are *semiotically
*connected in such a way that they must be determinations of one
Quasi-mind, which is also a Sign.  What you quoted from Peirce's footnote
to CP 4.550 is about multiple Dynamic Interpretants--again, *actual effects*
of Signs--that are *dynamically* connected.


Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman
www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt

On Fri, Mar 2, 2018 at 2:49 PM, Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca> wrote:

> Jon, list,
> 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.
> Edwina
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 .

Reply via email to