Edwina, List: I am glad that we agree on #1, but I think that it is very important to maintain a clear distinction between when we are talking about Signs and when we are talking about Instances or Sign-Replicas. However, I acknowledge that Peirce himself was not always careful about this, which sometimes poses challenges for interpreting his writings.
With #2, the problem in this context is defining "interaction" in a way that deviates from *Peirce's *usage. He certainly never employed the term "semiosic interaction," and only rarely mentioned "interaction" of any kind; but it just so happens that he did so in one of the few places where he touched directly on *bio*semiotics, and there he explicitly *equated *interaction with 2ns. CSP: As to protoplasm, what the three *cenopythagorean categories*, as I call them, do, and what they are limited to doing, is to call attention to three very different characters of this chemical body. The first is a *posse *which it has in itself; for the *priman *stops at *can-bes* and never reaches to existence, which depends on interaction, or *secundanity*. (CP 1.351; ) Elsewhere he discussed the interaction between the inner and outer worlds, mind and body, or mind and matter. Those passages generally include, or at least hint at, the notion of reciprocity that is inherent in the prefix "inter-" and contrasts with the unidirectional nature of semiosic determination--the Object determines the Sign, while the Sign does not affect the Object; the Sign determines the Interpretant, while the Interpretant does not affect the Sign. CSP: In its relation to the Object, the Sign is *passive*; that is to say, its correspondence to the Object is brought about by an effect upon the Sign, the Object remaining unaffected. On the other hand, in its relation to the Interpretant the Sign is *active*, determining the Interpretant without being itself thereby affected. (EP 2:544n22; 1906) As for #3, I believe that terminological clarity and consistency greatly aid in understanding functionality. Taking the seed as the Dynamic Object, it makes more sense to me to view the bird as the interpreting Quasi-mind and its percept as the initial Sign, of which the bird's perceptual judgment is a Dynamic Interpretant (further Sign), of which its eating the seed is a subsequent Dynamic Interpretant (exertion). Each of these *discrete *steps is a somewhat arbitrary artifact of analysis, since the Real process of semiosis is *continuous*. Regards, Jon S. On Tue, Aug 7, 2018 at 3:20 PM, Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> wrote: > JAS, list > > On much of this - we'll simply have to agree-to-disagree. I'm not going to > get into endless back and forth about terminology...i.e.,'instance/ > replica/ and so on. > > 1] Of course the 'Sign' doesn't exist except in its replicas - but, a > bird, acting as a semiosic thing - IS a replica! > > 2] And no- semiosic interaction is not contradictory - it's only a problem > since YOU define the term 'interaction' to have only ONE meaning: dyadic - > when I'm saying that the interaction between X and Y is a triadic or > semiosic interaction. The fact that YOU define interaction ONLY as dyadic > and don't use it within a triadic sense - I'm not going to argue with you > about this. You have your terms...and I have mine. > > 3] The bird, interacting semiosically [yes - that's not dyadic] with the > seed, thereby sets up the seed as a DO to the bird. Of course it's the > 'percept' - but again, one can get lost in terminology- and I simply won't > get into such a discussion of 'which word/term is the correct one'. I'm > focused on the functionality of the semiosic interaction - not the terms. > > Edwina > > On Tue 07/08/18 4:05 PM , Jon Alan Schmidt [email protected] sent: > > 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 .
