Edwina, List: Fair enough; more generally, a gift is a medium for the communication of *ownership *or *possession *from one person to another. In any case, the EGs straighforwardly demonstrate that the gift corresponds to the Sign (or Representamen) as a *correlate*, while the act of giving corresponds to the *relation *of determining. Another Peircean analogy is with the utterer (Sue), the Sign (book/doll/handkerchief), and the interpreter (child); the "essential ingredient of the utterer" is the Object, while that of the interpreter is the Interpretant (cf. EP 2:404-409; 1907).
Regards, Jon S. On Fri, Apr 19, 2019 at 1:19 PM Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> wrote: > Jon, list > > You wrote: "Notice, though, that the book corresponds to the Sign, > rather than to either the Object or the Interpretant--which makes sense, > since a book is a medium for the communication of a text from one person to > another, and a Sign is a medium for the communication of a Form from an > Object to an Interpretant." > > Here - I will continue to differ. I consider that the book is not > understood here as a 'medium for the communication of a text from one > person to another'. In this situation, the book could be a doll or a > handkerchief. It's an Object which is being given by Sue to child, and in > my view, the act of giving, as held by Sue, is the Representamen or > mediation. > > Edwina > > On Fri 19/04/19 1:40 PM , Jon Alan Schmidt [email protected] sent: > > Edwina, List: > > Giving and representing/mediating are both triadic relations, but they > are not the same triadic relation; in fact, they are not even isomorphic > triadic > relations. I suppose that instead we can compare giving to determining, > which better reflects "the flow of causation" in semeiosis--Sue stands in > the relation of giving, of a book, to a child; the Object stands in the > relation of determining, of a Sign, to an Interpretant. > > [image: image.png] > > This treats determining as triadic, rather than dyadic, consistent with > Peirce's definition that a Sign "is both determined by the object relatively > to the interpretant, and determines the interpretant in reference to the > object, in such wise as to cause the interpretant to be determined by the > object through the mediation of this 'sign'" (EP 2:410; 1907). Notice, > though, that the book corresponds to the Sign, rather than to either the > Object or the Interpretant--which makes sense, since a book is a medium for > the communication of a text from one person to another, and a Sign is a > medium for the communication of a Form from an Object to an Interpretant. > > Regards, > > Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA > Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman > www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt > > On Fri, Apr 19, 2019 at 10:35 AM Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> John, list >> >> What if one were to diagram your suggestion of: Sue gives child a book - >> into >> >> DO=book....which is then transformed from its identity and domain [a >> bookstore], by the semiosic action of the triadic Sign, as held by >> the Representamen-and-its action, which is: Sue-Who-Gives into >> >> DI= book, which is now in a different domain and identity: that of the >> Child [who is also a semiosic triad which includes a Representamen]. >> >> 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 .
