Jon, Edwina, List,
I think:
- The representamen is the loud sound, and everything connected with it in the situation (as the representamen is also the sign, so including all following points too)
- The dynamical object is that, what the bird initially feels to be the source of the loud sound,
Helmut - I'll disagree. You are missing the triadic semiosic process
of O-R-I. You are missing the process of mediation between the Object
and the Interpretant - which is the action carried out by the
Representamen.
Therefore - the Representamen is not 'the loud sound' -
Edwina, isn´t mediation (thirdness) a matter of the interpretant (thirdness), not the representamen? Well, I see representamen, object, interpretant as 1ns, 2ns, 3ns, which perhaps you don´t. Ok, representamen is also the sign, which is thirdness, because it includes all. This is difficult.
BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px; }I
would disagree. The falling of the tree is a full Sign
[O-R-I]with the actual fall as the Dynamic Interpretant. The
wind-taking-down-the-tree might by a Dynamic Object to the
tree...which then reacts by falling
Helmut, List:
In my view, we can indeed take the loud sound to be the Representamen, as I
initially suggested--noting again that my definition differs significantly
from Edwina's. This leads to a different analysis in which the Dynamic
Object is the falling of the tree that *causes *the sound,
Helmut - no the relation between the Representamen and the Object
can be in ANY of the three modes [1stness, 2ndness, 3rdness]. Same
with the Representamen-in-itself. And the relation between the
Representamen and the Interpretant can also be in any of the 2 modes.
Check the ten sign
Edwina, List:
Yes, again, we have very different definitions of "Representamen." Just to
clarify--are you saying that in your view, the loud sound *cannot *be
treated as the Representamen in *any *semiotic analysis of this scenario?
If so, why not?
Thanks,
Jon S.
On Sun, Feb 4, 2018 at 5:15
Edwina, Jon S, list,
At the moment I would tend to agree more with Edwina's interpretation than
with Jon's. But I'm beginning to see the problem, feel the tension in this
matter. I'm not quite yet up to arguing *why* I agree, but I'll offer a few
quotes hints towards a direction I think might be
Gary R., List:
Welcome back! I hope that your recovery is going well, and that you will
soon be able to elaborate on these selectively highlighted quotes, because
frankly I am having trouble seeing how they bear on our current non-human,
non-cognitive example.
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt -
Jon, Edwina, list,
Jon wrote:
I still think that the IO-R-II triad is within the *Sign*, not necessarily
within the bird (Receiver), but we can set that disagreement aside for
now. More to the point--in your view, does semiosis *only *take place
within the bird? Is there no *other *semiosis
BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}1]Jon - to me, the Representamen is an act of mediation; it
transforms the data from the IO [Immediate Object] into an
Interpretation...
So- to me, the loud sound is incoming sensate data; It doesn't act
as MIND,
BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}The key action of semiosis that I am examining takes place within
the birdthe IO-Representamen-II.
A Representamen is always internal to the triad.
The loud sound is both the Dynamic Object - which
Jon, Edwina, list,
I'm not quite *back*, but thanks for the welcome back!
Again, I would suggest that a return to a human, cognitive example would be
helpful for clarifying the ideas being considered. Perhaps you hadn't read
my last post when you questioned how those quotations might be helpful.
Gary R., List:
Of course the Sign *can *be within the bird; what I said was that I think
it does not necessarily *have to* be be within the bird.
I have tried to avoid human semiosis in this conversation, because I
suspect that Edwina and I will have many more disagreements once we go in
that
Correction: Oops. Said this just backward. I wrote, "I see you as
emphasizing the external, existential sign, whereas I always tend to turn
to the cognitive one (as at least springboard). In "a sign of a sign" your
emphasis seems to me to be the former, mine the latter."
I *meant *to say that
Edwina, List:
Just a few comments--not to start another argument, just to highlight more
differences in our views that are becoming apparent.
The loud sound involves the behavior of matter, which is effete mind, and
mediates between the falling tree and the fleeing bird; so I am still not
seeing
Edwina, List:
I still think that the IO-R-II triad is within the *Sign*, not necessarily
within the bird (Receiver), but we can set that disagreement aside for
now. More to the point--in your view, does semiosis *only *take place
within the bird? Is there no *other *semiosis going on, in which
17 matches
Mail list logo
