BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}Stephen, list.
I agree - semiosis functions with the real world and not just in the
abstract musings of the seminar room - which, yes, can succumb to
nominalism. So, explicit examples are vital because these examples
move terms from POV to actual operational functionality. It is only
then that we can see contradictions and problems within those terms
and their relations.
Edwina
On Thu 22/03/18 5:46 AM , "Stephen C. Rose" stever...@gmail.com
sent:
If semiosis is real, a general, true regardless what one thinks or
does not think, how can any theory of it be more than an inadequate
effort to make sense of the reality it embodies. This is one reason
that examples are relevant. If my sign is today's news i can proceed
to tell you how I might parse it according to mu lights. But I would
also be going on the premise that today's news sits in an infinite
(from my POV) sea of potential views. My analysis would not depend on
the veracity of my theory or way of looking at today's news. I might
explain it which is what I mean by always suggesting there be an
example. But when we get to that point we have left the fundamental
truth of semiosis (its universality and reality) and gotten to how we
think. That is interesting but it has litte interest to someone who
has a different way of looking at what is the case. It is more a case
study I think. Even Peirce whom we concede to have studied more deeply
than most is only, implicitly by sharing his philosophy, offering us a
view of how he gets where he is going. Each of us, if reading him,
will concede that these theories and modes are subject to his general
and repeated affirmation of realism and his rejection of nominalism.
amazon.com/author/stephenrose [1]
On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 9:34 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt wrote:
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 [3]).
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
-----------------------------
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 [5] . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to
PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu [6] with the line "UNSubscribe
PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at
http://www.cspeirce.com/ [7]peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
Links:
------
[1] http://amazon.com/author/stephenrose
[2]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'jonalanschm...@gmail.com\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
[3]
https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/arc/peirce-l/2018-03/msg00191/Semiosis.jpg
[4]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'tabor...@primus.ca\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
[5]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'peirce-L@list.iupui.edu\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
[6]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'l...@list.iupui.edu\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
[7] 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 .
