Edwina, List: ET: [NOTE: with 'the Sign' understood by me as another entity/thing interacting semiosically with the DO]
Such a definition is problematic unless 'the Sign' in this context is intended as shorthand for an *Instance *of the Sign, or a Sign-*Replica*. According to Peirce, "a sign is not a real thing" (EP 2:303; 1904); and as discussed on the List recently, it is clear that he intended the emphasis to be placed on "thing," rather than on "real." A Sign is *not *an entity/thing that interacts *at all*; it does not *exist*, except in its Replicas. ET: I consider that the first entity/thing functions as a DO only when it is in semiosic interaction with another entity/thing. As I understand Peirce's terminology, "semiosic interaction" is self-contradictory. There is dyadic action/reaction/interaction, exemplifying 2ns; and there is triadic semiosis, exemplifying 3ns. These are two *different *phenomena, always distinguishable whenever we examine the Phaneron, and neither is reducible to the other. ET: A bird - another Sign - interacts with this seed, which becomes because of the interaction with the bird, a DO...and, when eaten, a component of the bird/Sign. The DO, the seed, does not determine the bird! The two are interactive. In this example, what is the Sign that represents the seed as its DO? It *cannot *be the bird itself if the seed does not determine the bird or if the two are interactive, because by definition the DO determines the Sign, while the Sign has no effect at all on its DO. I would suggest that the Sign is instead the bird's percept of the seed, which results in the bird's instinctive (and retroductive) perceptual judgment that the seed is food, which has as its Dynamic Interpretant the exertion of the bird eating the seed. Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt On Tue, Aug 7, 2018 at 2:08 PM, Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> wrote: > Gary R, list: > > I'm not saying that the DO on its own agency determines or causes the Sign > in biosemiosis or any semiosis..... [NOTE: with 'the Sign' understood by > me as another entity/thing interacting semiosically with the DO]. And > to further clarify, I consider that the first entity/thing functions as a > DO only when it is in semiosic interaction with another entity/thing. > > What is a semiosic interaction? It includes Mind - and the semiosic > interaction can be in any of the three categorical modes. > > So- let's say a seed is a particular actuality. It is in my view, a DI, an > actual Interpretant of various organic and inorganic matter, organized > within the habits of formation of this particular species of a plant. But > no DI exists 'per se' but as a part of a semiosic sign, the full triad. So, > the seed is as a morphological unit, a triadic Sign in itself, in semiosic > interactions with other forms of matter [water, soil, nutrients etc]. > > A bird - another Sign - interacts with this seed, which becomes because > of the interaction with the bird, a DO...and, when eaten, a component of > the bird/Sign. The DO, the seed, does not determine the bird! The two are > interactive. > > I am aware that Gary R does not agree with my view that the two Signs are > interactive in a semiosic act - but - I can't explain it any other way. > > 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 [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 .
