List Moderator (Gary),
This alarms me. The starting post in this thread is putatively from
Edwina, but does not bear the hallmarks of her posting style nor format.
The message itself does not read as from Edwina. Further, the main
message of the post requires us to open a file; PDF in this case, which
does convey a bit more security, but opening a file nonetheless.
Edwina has subsequently disowned the post. At minimum, we have a
spammer. At maximum, it is much worse.
I'm not sure how the list should proceed from here, but there are issues
that need immediate attention.
Mike
On 12/4/2018 7:59 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt wrote:
Edwina, List:
Very strange; that message also now appears in the List archive with
today's date
(https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/arc/peirce-l/2018-12/msg00004.html).
ET: I suggest that objective reality exists outside of the
semiosic interaction - and becomes a DO when it is in some
particular individual semiosic interaction.
When you put it that way, I agree in the sense that an Instance of a
Sign is an /occurrence/, where the Dynamic Object and Dynamic
Interpretant are what the Sign /actually /denotes and signifies
(respectively) on that occasion.
In my understanding, the Quasi-mind is what possesses knowledge
(beliefs) and therefore habits, as the cumulative effect of all
previous Signs that have determined it to various Dynamic Interpretants.
It was Peirce himself who explicitly stated, "A Sign is a
Representamen with a mental Interpretant" (CP 2.274, EP 2:272-273; 1903).
Regards,
Jon S.
On Tue, Dec 4, 2018 at 5:48 PM Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca
<mailto:tabor...@primus.ca>> wrote:
Jon, list
I note that your post claims that I sent that message to the list
on Tues, Dec 4, 2018. I haven't posted to the list for weeks and
so have no idea what is going on.
As for your comment that the SAME DO...produces a series of
signs..etc… My view is that the DO is only a DO when it has been
moved into a semiosic interaction and as such, is NOT the 'same
DO' for all semiosic actions. That is, I suggest that objective
reality exists outside of the semiosic interaction - and becomes a
DO when it is in some particular individual semiosic interaction.
The Representamen is in my understanding, the site of the habits,
i.e., the knowledge base. I disagree with your view that the
Representamen is a mere synonym for 'sign. And I consider that all
semiosis has a mental interpretant - understanding 'MIND" in the
Peircean sense to include all of matter [matter is effete mind].
We each have a very different view of semiosis - and I'm not
willing to get into a huge debate about our differences.
Edwina
On Tue 04/12/18 5:29 PM , Jon Alan Schmidt
jonalanschm...@gmail.com <mailto:jonalanschm...@gmail.com> sent:
Edwina, List:
This diagram suggests to me a linear input-output process in
which each Quasi-mind's Dynamic Interpretant is (or
determines) the next Quasi-mind's Dynamic Object. By
contrast, my understanding of Peircean semiosis is that the
same Dynamic Object produces a series of Signs as different
Dynamic Interpretants in different Quasi-minds, which is only
terminated if and when a particular Quasi-mind's Dynamic
Interpretant is a Feeling or Exertion, rather than yet another
Sign (cf. CP 4.536; 1906).
I am not aware of any text where Peirce defined
"Representamen" as "a generalizing habit-formation process
within a community"; that is what he called "semiosis" or even
"inquiry." Instead, he consistently used "Representamen" as
either a synonym for "Sign" or a generalization of "Sign" that
does not necessarily have a mental Interpretant (cf. CP 2.274,
EP 2:272-273; 1903).
Rather than being internal to each individual Quasi-mind, I
associate the Immediate Object and Immediate Interpretant with
the Sign/Representamen itself, in accordance with the specific
System of Signs to which it belongs. This is what makes it
possible for the Sign/Representamen to serve as a medium of
communication between different Quasi-minds, "welding" them
into one Commens (cf. CP 4.551 & EP 2.389-391 & EP 2.544n22 &
EP 2:478; all 1906).
The Final Interpretant seems to be missing from this scheme.
Where and how does it fit into the diagram? In my view, it is
the Dynamic Interpretant that the Sign/Representamen
would produce in the ideal Quasi-mind--the ultimate opinion of
an infinite community after infinite inquiry (cf. CP 8.184, EP
2:496; 1909).
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman
www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt
<http://www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt> -
twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt <http://twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt>
On Tue, Dec 4, 2018 at 8:21 AM Edwina Taborsky
<tabor...@primus.ca> wrote:
This is my own very rough drawing of the semiosic
interaction of Quasi-minds A, B, C…
I’ve set up the triadic Relations on two levels. That is,
the Representamen is a generalizing habit-formation
process within a community and as such, it mediates the
particular, and functions on a different spatiotemporal
scale than the particular individual experiences of the
Objects and Interpretants.
I hope this gets through to the list – I’m unskilled with
the computer – which dominates me rather than vice versa.
Edwina
--
__________________________________________
Michael K. Bergman
Cognonto Corporation
319.621.5225
skype:michaelkbergman
http://cognonto.com
http://mkbergman.com
http://www.linkedin.com/in/mkbergman
__________________________________________
-----------------------------
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 .
