Gary R., List: Are you perhaps referring to my abandonment of characterizing the Sign itself as a triad of IO-R-II? This goes back to the fact that Peirce never distinguished the terms "Representamen" and "Sign" in the specific way that such a model entails. I still affirm that the IO and II are internal to the Sign, while the DO and DI are external to it; and below I quoted Peirce's statement that the two Objects determine the Sign, which determines the three Interpretants; so I suspect that this indeed boils down to "a terminological matter."
Does that clarify things? If not, maybe I have just been staring at the pixels on my rather small tablet screen for too many hours consecutively. :-) Jon S. On Sun, Jun 24, 2018 at 7:08 PM, Gary Richmond <[email protected]> wrote: > Jon S, list, > > > Well, I may be the only one on the list who is at all confused by this, > and indeed it may prove to be just a terminological matter. Still, Peirce > says in many, many places that what happens *within* the sign is this > tripartite process: The IO *determines* the Sign which *determines* some > Interpretant Sign. You have stated that you reject this internal structure > (or am I wrong about that too?) > > In any event, may I ask: How does this tripartite structure figure in your > thinking today without getting a "Where on earth are you, etc." prologue to > an response? :-) > > > Best, > > Gary > > *Gary Richmond* > *Philosophy and Critical Thinking* > *Communication Studies* > *LaGuardia College of the City University of New York* > *718 482-5690* > > On Sun, Jun 24, 2018 at 7:22 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> Gary R., List: >> >> Where on earth are you getting the idea that my formulation abandons the >> fundamental semiotic process, in which the Object determines the Sign for >> its Interpretant? I am sincerely baffled by this suggestion. Here is what >> I said. >> >> JAS: a Sign denotes its Dynamic Object (Matter/2ns), signifies some of >> that Object's characters/qualities (Form/1ns)--which, taken together, >> constitute its Immediate Object--and determines its Interpretants to >> represent the unity of Matter and Form (Entelechy/3ns). >> >> >> I am describing what the Sign does, not what the Object does. I am not >> at all somehow removing the Sign from its genuine triadic relation with the >> Object and Interpretant. Peirce himself differentiated the two Objects and >> three Interpretants when he wrote, "the Dynamoid Object determines the >> Immediate Object, which determines the Sign itself, which determines the >> Destinate Interpretant, which determines the Effective Interpretant, which >> determines the Explicit Interpretant" (EP 2:481; 1908). >> >> As for Sign vs. Representamen, Peirce actually *did* say contradictory >> things in 1903 (when he gave the sunflower example) and 1905, because *he >> changed his mind* sometime during the interval between them--he decided >> that he no longer needed to use "Representamen," because "Sign" ended up >> suiting his original purpose after all. I now agree with that decision. >> Notice that "Representamen" does not appear in the 1908 quote above, or >> anywhere else in those crucial December letters to Lady Welby. >> >> Regards, >> >> Jon S. >> >> On Sun, Jun 24, 2018 at 5:43 PM, Gary Richmond <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> Jon S, list, >>> >>> Thanks.This was quite helpful. >>> >>> But there remains the awkward fact of the Peirce formulation that the >>> Object determines the Sign for its Interpretant Sign. Does he give up this >>> formulation in the 20th century? If not, whether you call it >>> "Representamen" or "Sign," there seems to me the problem that it would >>> appear in your formulation that the IO takes the place of the second moment >>> of that triadic formulation. >>> >>> According to Peirce in 1903, "A Sign is a Representamen with a mental >>> Interpretant. Possibly there may be Representamens that are not Signs" (EP >>> 2:273). >>> >>> >>> Of course you now would appear to reject that triadic formulation. Since >>> I very much like your reformulation, I'll have to think long and hard on >>> this. >>> >>> Still, if, as Peirce says, there are "Representamens that are not Signs" >>> (like sunflowers turning toward the sun in Peirce's famous example), then >>> there would seem yet to be a distinction to be made between Sign and >>> Representamen. Yet in your note addressed to me and just now to Gary F you >>> say the Sign and Representamen are "effectively synonymous." So, it appears >>> to me that Peirce is perhaps saying contradictory things when one looks >>> from one quotation to another on this not inconsequential matter of >>> terminology. It seems to me more than a matter of terminology. >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Gary >>> >>> *Gary Richmond* >>> *Philosophy and Critical Thinking* >>> *Communication Studies* >>> *LaGuardia College of the City University of New York* >>> *718 482-5690* >>> >>> On Sun, Jun 24, 2018 at 5:00 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt < >>> [email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> Gary R., List: >>>> >>>> GR: But would you explain why the Representamen is not included in >>>> your formulation whatsoever? >>>> >>>> >>>> In this context, how would you distinguish the Representamen from the >>>> Sign? >>>> >>>> According to Peirce in 1903, "A Sign is a Representamen with a mental >>>> Interpretant. Possibly there may be Representamens that are not Signs" (EP >>>> 2:273). If you favor these definitions, such that a Sign is only a certain >>>> kind of Representamen, then simply substitute "Representamen" for "Sign" in >>>> my formulation. >>>> >>>> However, according to Peirce in 1905, "I use 'sign' in the widest sense >>>> of the definition. It is a wonderful case of an almost popular use of a >>>> very broad word in almost the exact sense of the scientific definition ... >>>> I formerly preferred the word *representamen*. But there was no need >>>> of this horrid long word" (SS 193). I have come to agree with that >>>> assessment. >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> >>>> Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA >>>> Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman >>>> www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt >>>> >>>
----------------------------- 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 .
