BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px; }
Jon, list:
1: Of course I know that the Quasi-Mind need not be a person but can
be a group of crystals and etc.! I am trying to provide an EXAMPLE of
such and its interaction. There is no need to complicate a simple
example!
2. So- your use of the Sign is in its function as mediation - and
not as the Triad of [IO-R-II]. I think that readers need this
clarified.
3. So wait - you are saying that a DI becomes ...what. I'm unsure.
Are you saying that a DI becomes..a Representamen? It sounds like you
are confining the term of Representamen to Thirdness...when you say it
is "not feelings or exertions" [which are in 1ns and 2ns]. But..I
disagree on both counts. A Representamen [and I use the term to
differentiate it from the TRIAD [IO-R-II]...can be in any categorical
mode.
And - I don't see that a DI becomes a Representamen. Its
informational content can be generalized and added to the knowledge
base/habits of the Representamen, but I don't see that the DI becomes
'a further Sign'.
4. And now, you are confusing me again, with your statement:
"Furthermore, each IO and II is internal to a Sign, not internal to
a person (or Quasi-mind); and "existence" is not coextensive with
"objective reality," since a DO can be a Possible or a Necessitant,
not just an Existent."
In the above statement, you are using the term Sign to refer not to
the Representamen /medium - which you do in point 2, but to the
triad!
And you are being 'picky' with my reference to the DO as 'objective
reality'. I'm aware that a DO can be in any categorical mode. I was
providing an example of a shout of STOP.
I don't see why I should set aside my own model of semiosis, which I
consider to be based on Peirce, to debate with you about YOUR model -
with which I have problems. You are claiming that there is only one
valid model - yours!!! Do you want a debate and dialogue or merely
subservient following?
5. You say that you are:
" by no means "asserting that the IO and II are the same," only
tentatively suggesting that one Sign's II is the subsequent Sign's
IO. "
Whew - does the difference between 'asserting' and 'suggesting'
really nullify my asking you why you are making such a claim?
6. You write: " If this is correct--and I am still very much open to
being persuaded that it is not--then the change in information
("mediation and transformation") occurs during the transmission of
the Sign from one Quasi-mind to another"
What do you mean by 'Sign' in the above sentence? The Representamen
or ??? If you mean the Representamen - it is not transmitted. It is a
function of an Agent's [person/bee/crystal]...semiosic process and
serves to mould the information received - and transmit it to another
Agential semiosic site. Do you mean information as held within the
Interpretants?
7. And, you write: " The Form that Sign Y signifies (IO) is not
identical to the Form that Sign Y communicates (II), which is
precisely why its DI (Sign Z) is not identical to Sign Y itself."
What do you mean by 'Sign' in the above? The Representamen? Or the
Triad? The Representamen does not, to my understanding, signify an
IO.
8. No diagramme is attached.
Edwina
On Wed 21/03/18 4:47 PM , Jon Alan Schmidt [email protected]
sent:
Edwina, List:
Responding to your second message first ...
*A (logical) Quasi-mind does not necessarily correspond to a
person; it might instead be a bird, a hive of bees, a group of
crystals, or a Phemic Sheet.
*As I stated, a Sign is "a Medium for the communication of a
Form"; I am deliberately avoiding the word "Representamen," because
Peirce only used it as a generalization or synonym of "Sign."
*This particular example only concerns semiosis in which all DIs
are further Signs, not feelings or exertions.
*Signs X, Y, and Z all have the same DO; Sign X is internal to
Quasi-mind A, Sign Z is internal to Quasi-mind B, and Sign Y is
external if these are two "separate" Quasi-minds.
Furthermore, each IO and II is internal to a Sign, not internal to a
person (or Quasi-mind); and "existence" is not coextensive with
"objective reality," since a DO can be a Possible or a Necessitant,
not just an Existent. All of this is "basic Peirce" on my reading;
please do not impose your terminology on my posts, since we both know
that many of your definitions are quite different from mine. If you
cannot set aside your own model of semiosis in order to evaluate the
alternative that I am proposing, then further dialogue between us
will almost certainly be fruitless.
This thread is intended to be an inquiry for which I am seeking
the assistance of the List community. I am by no means "asserting
that the IO and II are the same," only tentatively suggesting that
one Sign's II is the subsequent Sign's IO. If this is correct--and
I am still very much open to being persuaded that it is not--then the
change in information ("mediation and transformation") occurs during
the transmission of the Sign from one Quasi-mind to another. The
Form that Sign Y signifies (IO) is not identical to the Form that
Sign Y communicates (II), which is precisely why its DI (Sign Z) is
not identical to Sign Y itself.
I have been experimenting with some speculative diagrams of
semiosis. Attached is one that attempts to illustrate the example
that I verbally described. The DO initiates a continuum of Signs
that (ideally and ultimately) would terminate in the FI. Each Sign
actually determines the subsequent Sign that is its DI, at least in
part by determining its own II that serves as the next Sign's IO.
This is an analytical snapshot of one intermediate stage in the
process, analogous to a marked point on a continuous line--the
instance when Quasi-mind A utters Sign Y to Quasi-mind B.
Of course, the diagram does not and cannot capture everything. For
example, missing are all of the other Signs that have previously
determined each Quasi-mind, and therefore affect how each one
interprets these Signs--another reason why Signs X, Y, and Z are not
identical. In addition, this model appears to require that the II
determines the DI, which determines the FI; and although this strikes
me as the correct temporal sequence of the three Interpretants, my
recent contemplation of them has led me to suspect that it might not
be the correct logical sequence when ordering the corresponding
trichotomies for Sign classification.
Thanks,
Jon S.
On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 11:51 AM, Edwina Taborsky wrote:
Jon, list - I'll try again
I know that the Immediate Object and Imm. Interpretant are internal
to the triadic Sign - that's my point. You seem to clarify your
example as referring to only ONE person over two time periods. But
that doesn't really change the problem which is that your model
doesn't acknowledge that the actual complex nature of the triadic
Sign enables and indeed functions - to permit CHANGE in the nature of
the information between the IO of Person A and the II of Person B [and
that includes a temporal succession in one Person A]. After all - you
seem to be asserting that the IO and II are the same!
By 'individual closure of the triadic Sign itself' - I mean the
[IO-R-II] of Person A which is individual to him and his cognition;
and the [IO-R-II] of Person B, which is equally individual to him and
his cognition.
The Representamen isn't simply a 'medium' or conveyor belt; it's a
mediation - i.e., it transforms the informational content of the IO
to the II. [And yes, I can find quotations from Peirce for both terms
of mediation and transformation]. That's the basic power of the
triadic Sign; its capacity to enable information growth and
adaptation. Your model doesn't permit this.
The 'existential nature of the Dynamic Object'?? That refers to its
existence as an objective reality - regardless of what you or I or
any person thinks of it. Again, that's basic Peirce.
Edwina On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 3:00 PM, Edwina Taborsky wrote:
Jon, list:
And I continue puzzling over your statement below:
JAS: "Suppose that Quasi-mind A utters Sign Y, which determines
Quasi-mind B to a further Sign Z as its Effectual or Dynamic
Interpretant. The Communicational Interpretant of Sign Y is simply
its Immediate Interpretant--the Form that Sign Y communicates from
Quasi-mind A to Quasi-mind B as a determination of their overlap, the
Commens (A ∩ B). The Intended or Intentional Interpretant is Sign
X, the preceding determination of Quasi-mind A by the same Dynamic
Object, such that Sign Y is the Dynamic Interpretant of Sign X. Let
me also tentatively suggest that the Immediate Interpretant of Sign X
serves as the Immediate Object of Sign Y, and the Immediate
Interpretant of Sign Y serves as the Immediate Object of Sign Z."
1] Could we dispense with the Quasi-Mind term and simply say: Person
A, Person B. We can assume that both have a mind.
2] My first confusion comes - immediately. What do you mean by Sign
Y? Do you mean what I term the Representamen? Or do you mean the
triad of [IO-R-II]? Or do you mean the Peircean simple: O-R-I? For
example, the person utters a spontaneous cry: STOP! This is a
Rhematic Indexical Sinsign.
I view this triad, in this example: functioning as a Dynamic Object
shouted by Person A. Person B hears it...as [IO-R-II]. And, he may
stop [DI].
3] But you don't say it like this so I'm unsure of YOUR meaning. Do
you mean that the DI is ALSO a (a) Representamen; or a triad
[IO-R-II]? Or do you mean that the original shout of STOP which I see
as functioning as a DO in Person A, has become a DI in Person B?
4] Sorry- but the next half of your paragraph is too convoluted for
me to figure out. You've added a set of Signs, eg, X, which you say
is an Interpretant of a previous Dynamic Object.....and..Z and...it
gets too muddy for me to deal with.
How can an 'Immediate Interpretant of Sign Y serves as the
Immediate Object of Sign Z". How can two internal Signs be
interactive without the work of a Dynamic Object and Dynamic
Interpretant - which moves the internal to the external??????
Edwina
Links:
------
[1]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'[email protected]\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
-----------------------------
PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L
to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to [email protected] . To
UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] with the
line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
