Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Representamen Discussion

Dear Discussants: As a lurking observer, I wish to thank everyone who contributed to this discussion for helping to explain a very difficult concept. I can't say I understand it all yet, but you have certainly helped a great deal in increasing understanding. Thanks to everyone who offered their

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Representamen Discussion

Jerry R., List: Thanks for your input, which I think has helped the conversation along. Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt On Fri, Feb 9, 2018 at 7:51 PM,

Re: Re: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Representamen Discussion

Edwina, List: I think that we continue to make real progress in understanding each other. As I see it, our remaining differences mostly boil down to Representamen vs. Quasi-mind, and the related issue of whether a Sign can be external as well as internal. Peirce frequently appended the prefix

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Representamen Discussion

Dear Edwina, list, What I see you doing in your last post is giving reasons for valuing quiddity for Mind in triadic relation. What I also see you doing is giving reasons to avoid valuing hecceity in Quasi-mind contra Mind. So long as you do the former (valuation for quiddity) and divest

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Representamen Discussion

BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px; } Jerry - I don't see that the individual mind is necessarily referenced as 'quasi-mind. "A sign is in s conjoint relation to the thing denoted and to the mind'. 3.360 "But if the triple relation

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Representamen Discussion

Edwina list, As per your objection, “I would prefer to somehow imply/read that individual mind/quasi-mind is an aspect of Mind. I just get 'antsy' about the term 'subset'.” Here are a few quotes from Peirce that address why individual mind/quasi-mind is an aspect of Mind (but this concept

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Representamen Discussion

Edwina, I think what is meant by 'subset' is that your conception of things contributes to the overall conception of things. But there is also the possibility that what you contribute are the good and right things and you are supposed to let go of the things that are not good and/or right.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Representamen Discussion

BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px; }Jerry- yes, Peirce was quite specific that one cannot make individuals judges of truth...and that we function within a 'community'...and I certainly agree with that. I would prefer to somehow imply/read that individual

Re: Re: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Representamen Discussion

Edwina, list, Here is a reason for difference between Mind and Quasi-Mind: *When we come to the great principle of continuity and see how all is fluid and every point directly partakes the being of every other, it will appear that individualism and falsity are one and the same. *

Re: Re: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Representamen Discussion

BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px; }Jon - I still don't see why you call this semiosic action the 'quasi-mind' rather than the 'mind'. What's the difference between the two? This 'mind/quasi-mind', in my understanding operates within the

Re: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Representamen Discussion

Edwina, Jon, list, Thank you for that nice response. Now, if the commens is quasi-minds welded together, where is the representamen that represents the commens? How can we know of it unless unnoticed nuances of that internal representation are brought to our attention through some

Re: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Representamen Discussion

Edwina, List: Yes, I have; but I will try to do so again, with some additional detail. What you call the Representamen is basically (though not exactly) what I see Peirce calling the Quasi-mind, specifically the Quasi-interpreter (CP 4.551 ;1906). Its acquaintance with the system of Signs is

Aw: Re: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Representamen Discussion

Edwina, I would say, the knowledge brought with the representamen is the immediate object, the common knowledge (which not necessarily includes all existing relevant rules/laws) is part of the dynamical object, and the complete knowledge (including all relevant rules/laws) is the final

Re: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Representamen Discussion

BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px; }Jon, list - You haven't told us where and when the Quasi-Mind enters the semiosic interaction. And why just the Quasi-Mind? Why not MIND? When and how does MIND, which I understand as referring to the general

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Representamen Discussion

Gary R., List: I am currently trying out in my own mind defining the Immediate Object as the *partial *combination of attributes of the Dynamic Object by which the Sign *denotes *it. It is partial because (as you said) knowing the DO in its fullness is an impossibility. It does not *itself

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Representamen Discussion

cases of > these relatively simpler kinds of things--largely because that is how > greater clarity can be achieved. > > > --Jeff > > > Jeffrey Downard > Associate Professor > Department of Philosophy > Northern Arizona University > (o) 928 523-8354 <(928)%

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Representamen Discussion

Edwina, List: Thanks for the additional explication of your model. I knew that I was oversimplifying it (again), so this is helpful. Regards, Jon S On Wed, Feb 7, 2018 at 5:19 PM, Edwina Taborsky wrote: > Jon, list - there's still quite a bit of disagreement. > > You are

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Representamen Discussion

t;jonalanschm...@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, February 7, 2018 3:05:40 PM To: Helmut Raulien Cc: Peirce List Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Representamen Discussion Helmut: Thanks for clarifying that. It sounds like by "the epistemic cut" you mean Pe

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Representamen Discussion

BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px; } Jon, list - there's still quite a bit of disagreement. You are saying that I say that "all Signs [IO-R-II] are internal to an individual agent. But remember - I don't consider that this internal triad can exist

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Representamen Discussion

Helmut: Thanks for clarifying that. It sounds like by "the epistemic cut" you mean Peirce's distinction between "the inner world" and "the outer world." Indeed, Edwina's model (as I understand it now) is that all Signs (IO-R-II) are *internal to an individual agent*--although it need not be a

Aw: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Representamen Discussion

Jon, List, I took the epistemic cut for the boundary of one´s mind (is that correct?), and taking it into account means to have to mention which parts of a sign are internal and which are external to it, as Edwina did. A representamen then is internal to a certain person´s mind. If you do not

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Representamen Discussion

Helmut, List: I am not sure exactly what you mean in this context by "the epistemic cut," and hence which model (Edwina's or mine) you see as taking it into account vs. ignoring it. Could you please clarify? Thanks, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Professional Engineer, Amateur

Aw: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Representamen Discussion

Edwina, Jon, List, I guess there are two models, which are different, but either of them may justifiedly be chosen: One model is taking the epistemic cut in regard, and the other is ignoring it. When Peirce writes: "If you ask present when, and to whose mind, I reply that I leave these questions

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Representamen Discussion

Edwina, List: Understood, thanks again. Jon S. On Wed, Feb 7, 2018 at 10:30 AM, Edwina Taborsky wrote: > > Jon - you only partly get my view...but..I acknowledge that you are > getting most of it! > > I consider that the Dynamic Interpretant from Person A - since it is >

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Representamen Discussion

BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px; } Jon - you only partly get my view...but..I acknowledge that you are getting most of it! I consider that the Dynamic Interpretant from Person A - since it is articulated, has a Form; which is to say, it is now

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Representamen Discussion

Edwina, List: Thank you for confirming and elaborating on that. I knew that I was oversimplifying, but it is helping me get a much better handle on how you are using the terminology, which (needless to say) has been a major obstacle for me. I also recognize that the process is not as "linear"

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Representamen Discussion

BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px; }Jon - yes/no/ but. ...I think one has to be careful. It isn't as reductionist as it might sound from the words... The external Dynamic Interpretant of Person A, is his interpretation of an external Dynamic

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Representamen Discussion

Edwina, List: ET: The whole triad, which carries within it the general/common information of the Representamen as expressed within the Dynamic Interpretant will then act as a Dynamic Object from Person A to Person B. This is what I was seeking to confirm--in your view, the (external) Dynamic

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Representamen Discussion

Jerry R., List: My question was prompted by the fact that Edwina's definition of the Representamen requires it always to be *internal *to an agent; i.e., in her view, there is no such thing as an *external *Representamen. Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Professional Engineer,

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Representamen Discussion

BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px; } Jon - there isn't any 'gap'. There isn't any free-standing Sign that zips between two people, carrying all information in his postal bag. The whole triad, which carries within it the general/common information

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Representamen Discussion

Jon, list, You said: In your *semiotic *terminology, *what* bridges the external gap between the internal Representamen of the utterer and the internal Representamen of the receiver? mind if I try? the external representamen of the commens? Best, J On Tue, Feb 6, 2018 at 8:57 PM, Jon Alan

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Representamen Discussion

Edwina, List: Hmm, no, that is not what I mean. The "medium of communication" that I have in mind is whatever conveys an *idea *or *form *from one agent to another--certainly not mere air waves or screen pixels or light reflections. In your *semiotic *terminology, what bridges the external gap

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Representamen Discussion

BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px; }Jon - I don't quite understand the point of your question. When you are speaking of 'something external to convey the content from one person to another personthat is the medium of communication. That is

Re: Re: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Representamen Discussion

Edwina, List: Let me try asking my question in a slightly different way. If I am understanding you correctly, the [IO-R-II] triad is strictly *internal *to each individual agent. It seems to me that for communication to occur between two *different *agents, something *external *is required to

Re: Re: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Representamen Discussion

BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px; }Jon - the triad is: O-R-I. Therefore, all semiosic interaction between agents takes place within this triad. That means: DO[IO-R-II] DI The DO and DI are external. The Relations within

Re: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Representamen Discussion

Edwina, List: Seeking even greater clarity--given your view that the Representamen is always *internal *to an agent, do you also hold that all *external *communication *between *agents takes place by means of Dynamic Objects, rather than by means of Representamens? Thanks again, Jon S. On Tue,

Re: Re: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Representamen Discussion

Neal, List: Agreed. As I recently stated in the thread on "Collateral Experience and Habits of Interpretation," the word "determines" in this context carries in my mind the connotation of constraining or narrowing, rather than dictating; i.e., *reducing *the range of possibilities, but not (by

Re: Re: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Representamen Discussion

uary 6, 2018 at 2:54 PM To: "tabor...@primus.ca" <tabor...@primus.ca> Cc: "tabor...@primus.ca" <tabor...@primus.ca>, Jon Alan Schmidt <jonalanschm...@gmail.com>, "peirce-l@list.iupui.edu" <peirce-l@list.iupui.edu> Subject: Aw: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Representamen Discussion

Jon, list, Then I suppose I would do well to remember that. Best, J On Tue, Feb 6, 2018 at 3:24 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt wrote: > Jerry R., List: > > That quote is from c. 1896 (R 1345). In Peirce's later and more extensive > writings about semiosis, he consistently

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Representamen Discussion

Jerry R., List: That quote is from c. 1896 (R 1345). In Peirce's later and more extensive writings about semiosis, he consistently limited the term "Representamen" to the first Correlate--what he here called "the substance of the representation, or the *Vehicle* of the *Meaning*," such as "the

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Representamen Discussion

Edwina, List: I identify the word "vase" as a Representamen only in the first analysis, not the second, in which it is instead treated as a Dynamic Object; and I believe that we (more or less) agree on all of the other Correlates *except* (obviously) the Representamen. Thanks, Jon S. On Tue,

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Representamen Discussion

Jon, list, You said: On the contrary--those would be ten different Interpretants of the same Representamen. :-) I am sure you are right since you are now looking at the cartoon and not *vase*. A *Representamen* can be considered from *three formal points of view*, namely, first, as the

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Representamen Discussion

BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px; }Jon - the sticking point is the Representamen. But please note - YOU have informed us that the word 'vase' is a Representamen! The Representamen is, to me, the internal process of mediation that transforms the

Re: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Representamen Discussion

Jerry R., List: On the contrary--those would be ten different Interpretants of the same Representamen. :-) Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt On Tue, Feb 6,

Re: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Representamen Discussion

Dear list, Here are 10 different representamens for *vase*. Hth, Jerry R On Tue, Feb 6, 2018 at 2:38 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt wrote: > Edwina, List: > > I see considerable value in reaching agreement on exactly where we > disagree. :-) > > Thanks, > > Jon S. > > On

Re: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Representamen Discussion

Edwina, List: I see considerable value in reaching agreement on exactly where we disagree. :-) Thanks, Jon S. On Tue, Feb 6, 2018 at 2:22 PM, Edwina Taborsky wrote: > Jon - yes, that's correct. To me, the Representamen is internal to an > agent. It has the function of

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Representamen Discussion

Edwina, List: In the thread on "Collateral Experience and Habits of Interpretation," we completely agreed on the second analysis of the bird example, with the notable exception of how to define the Representamen. I honestly believe that the same is true of the second analysis of the "vase"

Re: Re: Re: Aw: Re: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Representamen Discussion

Edwina, List: Again, I do not expect to convince you; I am only doing exactly what you have said in the past that I should do, which is to note our disagreement and then make the case for my own view. Where do you see me "equating the Representamen with the Interpretant"? Regards, Jon S. On

Re: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Representamen Discussion

BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px; }Jon - yes, that's correct. To me, the Representamen is internal to an agent. It has the function of mediating between the external set of sensate data of the Dynamic Object...which is received by this Agent as the

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Representamen Discussion

BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px; }Jon - no, we don't agree on your first or second analysis. I totally and completely disagree with your view of the Repesentamen and indeed, of the semiosic process. I think we should stop. Wait and see if others

Re: Re: Re: Aw: Re: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Representamen Discussion

BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px; } Jon - stop. You haven't convinced me. I repeat; when I saw the written word - that word was a Dynamic Object. It then 'moved' into my Mind as an IO, where my knowledge base [Representamen] came up with several

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Representamen Discussion

Helmut, List: I wholeheartedly agree with you that different analyses will assign the same element to different Correlates. I tried to make that point with the bird example--the loud sound initially serves as a Representamen that stands for the falling of the tree, and then as a Dynamic Object

Re: Re: Aw: Re: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Representamen Discussion

Edwina, List: JAS: Initially the bare word "vase" stood for my previous discussion with Gary R. to your interpreting mind. ET: The first time - my Interpretant of it was that it referred to your discussion with Gary R. I read these two statements as saying exactly the same thing--the word

Aw: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Representamen Discussion

Edwina, Jon, I think you are both right: When we talk about the word "vase" we have seen written, this written word is the dynamic object. When somebody just reads the word "vase", the word is a representamen. In the first case, during the talk, there is a semiotic chain in which interpretants

Re: Re: Aw: Re: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Representamen Discussion

BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px; }Jon - NO. NO. It may have been a Representamen according to YOUR analysis. But it was, right from the start, to me - a Dynamic Object. The first time - my Interpretant of it was that it referred to

Re: Aw: Re: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Representamen Discussion

Edwina, List: *Initially *the bare word "vase" stood *for *my previous discussion with Gary R. *to *your interpreting mind. Hence it was indeed a Representamen according to my analysis, but with a different Dynamic Object than I anticipated. It was only in your *subsequent *analysis that you

Re: Aw: Re: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Representamen Discussion

Helmut - no, Peirce's term was not 'medium' which simply means a carrying-agent. His term was mediation. "A Representamen mediates between its Interpretant and its Object" 2.311 Edwina On Tue 06/02/18 1:37 PM , "Helmut Raulien" h.raul...@gmx.de sent: Edwina, List,

Re: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Representamen Discussion

BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px; }Jon - I had no recognition of the word as associated with a container for flowers. I associated it with your discussion with Gary R. Then - when you specifically asked the question: Is it a Representamen - I