BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}Jon
Hmm. Well, I don't disagree with all your points. After all, some of
them aren't open to agreement or disagreement.
So- I disagree with 2, 3, 4 and 7 - which are interpretations and
are thus open to agreement/disagreement.
And no, I won't retract or apologize for my opinion; after all -
when I reject your point of view - you inform me that my view is just
my own model [suggesting as you have done in the past, that it is
non-Peircean? ].....and suggesting I should set it aside. Why should
I do so? I am not asking you to set aside your model! I'm asking you
to clarify it - and can't seem to get clear answers. You also want
me to set aside my 'peculiar terminology ' What's peculiar about it?
It's Peirce's terminology!.
So- apart from your saying that you are very much open to other's
viewpoints - are you? Debate includes the reality that sometimes,
the opinions of others challenge your own and thus, one offends or is
offended. That's life. I'm not asking you to apologize for your view
that my understanding of Peirce is 'my own' and 'peculiar'. Nor for
your request that I set aside, give up, my model of Peirce. That's
just your opinion! And - I'm not offended. This is an academic debate
and 'being offended' has no place in such an interaction.
Edwina
On Wed 21/03/18 9:34 PM , Jon Alan Schmidt [email protected]
sent:
Edwina, List:
As I said, if you are unwilling, for the sake of this discussion, to
set aside your own model of semiosis--and (especially) your own
peculiar terminology, which is very different from mine--then further
dialogue between us will almost certainly be fruitless. I fully
expect you to disagree with me on just about every single one of the
following points.
*I chose a particular abstract example very intentionally.
*The Sign is not a "triad," although the IO and II are indeed
within it.
*There is no "Representamen" as you define it; for me, that word
is just a synonym for "Sign."
*The DI can be a feeling (1ns/Sympathetic) or exertion
(2ns/Percussive), but my example happens to be a case where it is
always another Sign (3ns/Usual), which is why a shout of STOP is not
an equivalent scenario.
*Peirce explicitly differentiated between Signs whose "Manner of
Appeal" is Imperative (urged or asserted) vs. Suggestive (merely
presented for contemplation); this proposal is of the latter kind.
*Signs absolutely can be, and often are, transmitted externally;
this e-mail message is precisely such a Sign, or more accurately, a
Replica of a Sign.
*My current working definitions are that the DO is the Matter
that the Sign denotes, the IO is the Form that the Sign signifies,
the II is the Form that the Sign communicates, the DI is the Matter
that the Sign determines, and the FI is the Entelechy that the Sign
intends.
*The diagram was attached to my last message, and is now
downloadable from the List archive
(https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/arc/peirce-l/2018-03/msg00191/Semiosis.jpg
[1] ).
Finally, your allegation, "You are claiming that there is only one
valid model - yours!!! Do you want a debate and dialogue or merely
subservient following?" is baseless, absurd, and offensive, and I
frankly think that you owe me a retraction and apology. What part of
"This thread is intended to be an inquiry for which I am seeking the
assistance of the List community" and "I am still very much open to
being persuaded" did you not understand?
Cheers,
Jon S.
On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 4:53 PM, Edwina Taborsky wrote:
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
Links:
------
[1]
https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/arc/peirce-l/2018-03/msg00191/Semiosis.jpg
[2]
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 .
