Edwina, List:
Responses interleaved below.
EDWINA: See my comments below:..a side note; can you deal with your font.
I can't read the small print - and can't seem to change it on my computer.
JON: Strange, your font is the one that has been coming up small when I
read and reply to your
My view is that there cannot be a Sign, that triadic existentiality, without a
connection, an interaction, a relation...with that which is not-the-Sign. Is
this Other an 'Interpreter'? Not in the sense in which we commonly understand
the term of 'interpreter', for the cognitive process of
See comments below:
1) JON: Next question--given that IfIdIi, where do the three interpretant
relation trichotomies fit?
S-Id = Relation of the Sign to the Dynamic Interpretant = Manner of Appeal to
the Dynamic Intepretant - Presented/Suggestive, Urged/Imperative,
Submitted/Indicative.
Edwina, List:
You evidently misunderstood what I was indicating, which is probably my
fault for not being clear. I was only listing the six trichotomies that
come AFTER the first four, which are Od Oi S (S-Od). Including all
ten this time ...
(a) Od Oi S (S-Od) If Id Ii (S-If)
A further comment to my comments below. I do not view the possible divisions of
the three Interpretants each into three modes as operationally functional. That
is, the resultant nine divisions would move the sign into decomposition.
Instead, we must consider the modes and where they overlap.
Stan - there doesn't have to be an 'interpretor' - understood as a human agent.
But, no semiosic triad, i.e., the Sign, exists 'per se', isolate. The very
nature of semiosis is its networked interactions. That is, the semiosic sign,
which can be graphed as a three-spoked umbrella (1.347)
See below:
- Original Message -
From: Jon Alan Schmidt
To: Edwina Taborsky
Cc: peirce-l@list.iupui.edu
Sent: Monday, August 17, 2015 1:14 PM
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Order of Interpretant Trichotomies for Sign Classes
Edwina, List:
Again, briefly ...
1) EDWINA:
I've just added a clarification - I might be misunderstanding Jon's notation...
- Original Message -
From: Jon Alan Schmidt
To: Edwina Taborsky
Cc: peirce-l@list.iupui.edu
Sent: Monday, August 17, 2015 1:14 PM
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Order of Interpretant Trichotomies for
Edwina, List:
Briefly ...
EDWINA: He later changed these to: Descriptive, Denominative and
Distributive. The Immediate Object is internal. I note that Peirce did not,
in his description of the above terms, refer to them as the 'Immediate
Object'. He used only the term 'Objects'. Can the
See my comments below:
- Original Message -
From: Jon Alan Schmidt
To: Edwina Taborsky
Cc: peirce-l@list.iupui.edu
Sent: Monday, August 17, 2015 11:15 AM
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Order of Interpretant Trichotomies for Sign Classes
Edwina, List:
Briefly ...
See my comments below:..a side note; can you deal with your font. I can't read
the small print - and can't seem to change it on my computer.
- Original Message -
From: Jon Alan Schmidt
To: Edwina Taborsky
Cc: peirce-l@list.iupui.edu
Sent: Monday, August 17, 2015 4:07 PM
Edwina, List:
I must admit that, contrary to my initial expectations, this exchange has
been quite helpful; especially the notions of more information vs. more
ambiguity, which I assume correspond to more determinate (less vague) vs.
more vague (less determinate).
EDWINA: I find your use of the
12 matches
Mail list logo
