semiosis and corresponding
terminology are very different before you stop criticizing it solely
on that basis?
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USAProfessional Engineer, Amateur
Philosopher, Lutheran Laymanwww.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt [1] -
twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt [2]
On Fri, Ma
BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}Gary R, list:
Thanks for a very wise post.
I very much agree with its assertion that semiosis is NOT
restricted to mediative process guided by general
signs/representamens - but that mediation includes
BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}list
I've just received a notice about a new book from a long time friend
and colleague, Ron Cottam, which speaks, I suggest, to some of the
questions explored on this list. Bridging the Gap between Life and
ons for fuzziness: Graduality, subjectivity...? Best, Helmut
25. März 2018 um 23:46 Uhr
"John F Sowa"
wrote: On 3/25/2018 5:08 PM, Edwina Taborsky wrote:
> I think that it's very difficult to correlate theory to model to
> the real world - and I think that Peirce specifica
BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}John - Yes, I see your point. And especially point 6!!!
Edwina
On Mon 26/03/18 9:21 PM , John F Sowa s...@bestweb.net sent:
On 3/26/2018 8:17 PM, Edwina Taborsky wrote:
> My comment is that I th
BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}John, list
Thanks for the outline; I've only had time to check out your slides.
My comment is that I think that a communication line
[Subject-Verb-Object] or even A gives Y to B, is very different from
s...@bestweb.net sent:
On 3/25/2018 3:10 PM, Edwina Taborsky wrote:
> I would suggest that Peirce's 'haziness' and 'fuzzy logic' have
> a great deal in common.
I agree, but there is one important difference. See the article on
"What is the source of fuzziness?" :
http:/
BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}John Sowa, list:
With regard to the 'hazy notion' outlined by Peirce - I'm reminded
of the fuzzy logic theory [see Lotfi Zadeh- who introduced it in, I
think, 1965], which refers to 'many-valued logics, and
BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}John Sowa, list:
Thanks for your post - excellent. You wrote:
"As a suggestion, I would say that both Jon and Edwina are pursuing
directions that were inspired by, but different from Peirce's.
They could
Heh - Jerry, my aims are not personal in the sense of confined to
myself but are 'understanding the writings of Peirce' -
pragmatically.
In other words - their pragmatic application. In my case, I'm
interested in the application of Peircean analysis in biosemiotics.
That
Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USAProfessional Engineer, Amateur
Philosopher, Lutheran Laymanwww.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt [1] -
twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt [2]
On Sat, Mar 24, 2018 at 8:16 AM, Edwina Taborsky wrote:
Stephen, Gary R, list
Stephen, thanks for your post. Yes, bogus is a
BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}The way I explain it, to myself, is:
Pure or Genuine Secondness [2-2] is an interaction [Relation] of
direct physical bruteness. A baseball bat hitting the ball. Period.
Strictly an external observation.
e the paper above, not
to mention much that you've done on this list--I consider your
critique bogus.
Best,
Gary
Gary RichmondPhilosophy and Critical Thinking Communication
StudiesLaGuardia College of the City University of New York718
482-5690 [4]
On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 8:16 PM, Edwina Taborsky
List
I think that the various comments and concerns by others on the
list, that attempts to set up an analytic and abstract model of the
semiosic process, with each part defined within an exact and singular
term and providing an exact and singular action - actually deny the
real nature
BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}JAS, list:
That's an interesting diagramme but as I'm sure you would expect, I
have problems with it as a diagramme of Peircean semiosis. The
comments below will be unintelligible unless one is looking at the
BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}Jon, Kirsti, list:
Yes - that's a key concept: Triadic RELATIONS - which, as Relations,
are interactive, dynamic, mediative and enabling transformations and
adaptations and yet, always, acknowledging the
quiry for which I am seeking the
assistance of the List community" and "I am still very much open to
being persuaded" did you not understand?
Cheers,
Jon S.
On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 4:53 PM, Edwina Taborsky wrote:
Jon, list:
1: Of course I know that the Quas
n to
being persuaded" did you not understand?
Cheers,
Jon S.
On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 4:53 PM, Edwina Taborsky wrote:
Jon, list:
1: Of course I know that the Quasi-Mind need not be a person but can
be a group of crystals and etc.! I am trying to provide an EXAMPLE of
suc
omposition tree is never ending: The DO
consists of two parts, the DI too, and the FI of three. And so on.
Best, Helmut 21. März 2018 um 21:00 Uhr
"Edwina Taborsky"
wrote:
Jon, list:
And I continue puzzling over your statement below:
JAS: &quo
ce of the three Interpretants, my
recent contemplation of them has led me to suspect that it might not
be the correct logical sequence when ordering the corresponding
trichotomies for Sign classification.
Thanks,
Jon S.
On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 11:51 AM, Edwina Taborsky wrote:
Jon, list - I'll
BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}Jon, list:
And I continue puzzling over your statement below:
JAS: "Suppose that Quasi-mind A utters Sign Y, which determines
Quasi-mind B to a further Sign Z as its Effectual or Dynamic
Interpretant.
s intended, its
purpose. Her Significance is the real upshot. [EP2:498]
Gary f.
On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 7:46 AM, Edwina Taborskywrote:
Jon AS, list;
I have a problem with the set up as you outline it - which remains
abstract rather than a concrete example.
BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px; }
Jon AS, list;
I have a problem with the set up as you outline it - which remains
abstract rather than a concrete example.
First - my problem is that I think the multiple terms for the three
ation, as I'm willing
to suffer through reading his arrogant comments in order to learn what
I can.
Matt
On Fri, Mar 16, 2018 at 8:41 AM Edwina Taborsky wrote:
Matt, list:
You wrote:
"He does this many other places too. It's hard to be as insufferably
arrogant as Pei
.
https://tidsskrift.dk/signs/article/view/103187/152244 [1]
Best,
Gary
Gary RichmondPhilosophy and Critical ThinkingCommunication
StudiesLaGuardia College of the City University of New York718
482-5690 [2]
On Fri, Mar 16, 2018 at 9:18 AM, Edwina Taborsky wrote:
BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}Jon, list:
1] Just one suggestion. When you are providing a quote from Peirce,
please do not add your comments within that quoted text. In the quote
below from CP 5,119, the words in brackets [3ns, 2ns, 1ns] are
bound to eventually pass into
irrelevance."
I'm uncertain of your meaning. Are you defining Peirce as
'insufferably arrogant' and declaring that his philosophy was merely
relative to the time - and is certain [bound] to become irrelevant?
Edwina Taborsky
On Thu 15/03/18 9:39
BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}Gene, list:
See my comments below: Overall - I think that your personal
antipathy towards industrialism and capitalism [an antipathy that I
do not share] means that you reject any thinker - even if they are
BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}Gene, list:
With regard to your comments, see below:
On Mon 12/03/18 12:59 PM , Eugene Halton eugene.w.halto...@nd.edu
sent:
Thanks, Gary R and Kirsti, for your comments, I’m just catching
up.
1]
ardia College of the City University of New York718
482-5690 [1]
On Sat, Mar 10, 2018 at 3:52 PM, Edwina Taborsky wrote:
List -
I would agree with the concerns expressed about the notion of
'perfection'. I suggest that the very idea of 'perfection', 'the
perfect sign', etc
BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px; }
Jon, list
I fully agree. Political 'science' is not a science. It's a set of
theories and its problem, I think, is that these theories can become
detached from reality and operate simply as ideology. But an
BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}Gene, list:
I think that your switch of what I consider the basic capacity of
mankind to explore the environment, examine its nature, and also, to
develop technologies to more productively interact with the world
alism replaces concepts like "friendship" with it. Best,
Helmut 02. März 2018 um 22:28 Uhr
"Edwina Taborsky"
Helmut - with regard to the word 'Interpreter' - that's a direct
quote from Peirce.
And after all, in his reference to a Quasi-mind, Peirce refers to
BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}JAS, Gary R, List - and here is, as I view it, a problem.
1] Notice that JAS seems to be confining the definition [and
function?] of a 'Sign' to a 'symbol', in other words, to Thirdness.
But is this accurate? Or
BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px; }
Jon- you haven't identified what this 'war' consists of.
For example - what does your reference to a war against science
actually mean?
And you refer to 'the rain of abuse against university-educated
Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USAProfessional Engineer, Amateur
Philosopher, Lutheran Laymanwww.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt [1] -
twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt [2]
On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 5:55 PM, Edwina Taborsky wrote:
Gary R - thanks for a wonderful post as moderator. I don't know how
to describ
hearing a
loud sound, the vase that someone sees upon opening his eyes, or the
child who screams upon touching a hot burner. The bird, the person
who sees the vase, and the child and her mother are all presumably
Quasi-minds.
I do not expect you to say anything further about any of this.
Regards,
of inquiry. We propose a definition (Retroduction),
explicate its implications (Deduction), test it against experience
(Induction), and revise/repeat as needed.
Regards,
Jon S.
On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 9:01 PM, Edwina Taborsky wrote:
Jon -
1]You are the one who is 'assertin
m actually very interested in exploring
the nature and function of perfect Signs and Quasi-minds within
concrete semiosis, but for me, coming up with clear definitions of
those terms is the first step.
Thanks,
Jon S.
On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 5:34 PM, Edwina Taborsky wrote:
Jon, list
an www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt [1] -
twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt [2]
On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 2:27 PM, Edwina Taborsky wrote:
list -
I think the terms need to be defined, since, apparently, each of us
has different definitions of 'sign'; perfect sign' and 'quasi-mind'.
list -
I think the terms need to be defined, since, apparently, each of us
has different definitions of 'sign'; perfect sign' and 'quasi-mind'.
Again, my understanding of the Sign is not confined to its function
as the Representamen, but to the semiosic process of
BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px; }
Jon - just a few of my concerns about your definitions - but - I'm
not going to get into another endless debate. I'm sure you'll respond
- but - we'll have to leave it with that.
You have informed us, in this
BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}list - I have hesitated to get into this thread because I don't want
to get into yet another interminable debate over terms - but - I do
have a few concerns about the definition of a quasi-mind and of a
perfect sign.
t that one reason why semiotics
exists -- so we can be appropriately vague, even about terms that
border on the ontological?
On Sun, Feb 18, 2018 at 12:07 PM, Edwina Taborsky wrote:
Stephen, list:
'Mind' is not the same as consciousness. Therefore, to suggest, as
Peirce does,
BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px; }
John - exactly, I fully agree - and nicely said. AND in addition,
all these processes are semiosic and involve Mind.
Edwina
On Sun 18/02/18 10:24 AM , John F Sowa s...@bestweb.net sent:
On 2/18/2018 7:40 AM,
is certainly what I will mean by
"Quasi-mind" as this discussion moves forward. If you still
disagree, once again please do not feel obligated to respond.
Regards,
Jon S.
On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 4:46 PM, Edwina Taborsky wrote:
Jon, list
I'm not going to get int
int in How
Language Began.
In my forthcoming Aeon article on Homo erectus, I note that there
are several other species that have learned symbols, but on species
of the genus Homo (erectus, Neanderthal, sapiens) have had symbols.
Dan On Feb 16, 2018, at 4:14 PM, Edwina Taborsky wrote:
.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt [1] -
twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt [2]
On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 3:26 PM, Edwina Taborsky wrote:
Gary R, List:
Again, my reading of these sections is that the Quasi-Mind appears
in the semiosic action of interaction.
If one considers that Mind is an
BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}Gary R, List:
Again, my reading of these sections is that the Quasi-Mind appears
in the semiosic action of interaction.
If one considers that Mind is an essential and universal component
of all
BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}Gary R, list
I'd also like some clarification and discussion of the 'quasi-mind'.
I have a very different interpretation than that of JAS, who seems, to
me at least, to assign the term of a 'quasi-mind' to a
BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px; }
Jon, list
This is simply too convoluted for me. I consider that the child's
cry is a semiosic action, a Rhematic Indexical Sinsign, an
unconscious physical reaction to an external stimuli. This is NOT
dyadic,
ike the concept of Quasi-mind that I am exploring.
Thanks again,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Professional Engineer,
Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran
Laymanwww.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt [1] -
twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt [2]
On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 11:12 AM, Edwina Taborsky wr
n Laymanwww.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt [1] -
twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt [2]
On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 9:54 AM, Edwina Taborskywrote:
Jon, list -
1. With regard to the example - I consider the child's scream to be
a DI, which then transforms into a DO for the mother.
speakables. Did Peirce believe that
entropy trumped what I would call syntropy? If so did he then believe
that logic was entropic?
amazon.com/author/stephenrose [1]
On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 8:34 AM, Edwina Taborsky wrote:
Gary R, Jon, list:
1. I don't think that there is an 'end t
gnable date in the
future there will be some slight aberrancy from law'.
Edwina
On Tue 13/02/18 8:34 AM , Edwina Taborsky tabor...@primus.ca sent:
BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}Gary R, Jon, list:
1. I don't think that there is an 'end to sem
BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}Gary R, Jon, list:
1. I don't think that there is an 'end to semiosis', because
Firstness, which is akin to entropy, is as basic to semiosis as
Thirdness/habits. Even a rock will dissipate. Also, I don't think
Helmut, list
My view of Peirce's Form and Matter is quite different from that of
JAS. I refer you to Vol 6, 354-364, which has an extensive outline of
different types of form. Indeed, he associates Form with 'forma
corpus' and 'morphe' {Note: I am transliterating from the
BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}Stephen - Peirce was 'Aristotelian' in issues about Matter and Form;
and the primacy of sensate data in our experience - and the nature of
Reality vs the individual Existence. But - Aristotle's evolution
theory was - as
BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}List - 200 in one week? That's about 20 per day! I admit I wasn't
aware of that many.
What seems to happen is that list members are involved in only a few
but not all discussions. With most topics, there can be a
" (CP 1.601;
1902). I wonder if this is precisely the difference between a
"thing" and a "Quasi-mind"; the latter must still have at least some
capability for Habit-change, as all human minds obviously do.
Thanks,
Jon S.
On Sun, Feb 11, 2018 at 6:52 PM, Edwina Taborsky
be a genuine Sign,
by "Signs" do you mean "ordinary" Sinsigns or Replicas of genuine
Signs?
Thanks,
Jon S.
On Sun, Feb 11, 2018 at 2:44 PM, Edwina Taborsky wrote:
Jon AS - I agree with your outline of the 'sign is not a real
thing'.
With regard to the nece
BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}Jon AS - I agree with your outline of the 'sign is not a real
thing'.
With regard to the necessity of the Dynamic Object, I'd suggest that
this Dynamic Object, as a thing also requires that it be related, so
to
ggest reading (or rereading) NEM 4:292-300, not just
EP 2:303-304, to see how he clearly aligned Form with 1ns, Matter with
2ns, and Entelechy with 3ns.
Regards,
Jon S.
On Sat, Feb 10, 2018 at 1:40 PM, Edwina Taborsky wrote:
Jon - - my view is that the IO and II are internal to the FO
e one in NEM is especially detailed and
illuminating on this point.
Thanks,
Jon S.
On Sat, Feb 10, 2018 at 12:31 PM, Edwina Taborsky wrote:
Jon, list
I don't see the Representamen as the individual site for storage.
That would make it 'existential' in itself. I see it as a site for a
mediat
Amateur
Philosopher, Lutheran Layman www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt [1] -
twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt [2]On Sat, Feb 10, 2018 at 8:57 AM,
Edwina Taborsky wrote:
Jon, list - I like your outline of a syllogistic format - I consider
that the semiosic triad of DO-[IO-R-II]..and
quot; (EP 2:324; 1904).
Regards,
Jon S.
On Sat, Feb 10, 2018 at 11:11 AM, Edwina Taborsky wrote:
Jon - OK - I have no problem with your outline.
I'd also say that a Sign [which I understand as the full set of
DO-[IO-R-II]...serves not only as the site for storage but also fo
gineer, Amateur
Philosopher, Lutheran Laymanwww.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt [1] -
twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt [2]
On Sat, Feb 10, 2018 at 8:57 AM, Edwina Taborsky wrote:
Jon, list - I like your outline of a syllogistic format - I consider
that the semiosic triad of DO-
BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}Jon, list - I like your outline of a syllogistic format - I consider
that the semiosic triad of DO-[IO-R-II]..and possibly DI functions in
a syllogistic format.
But with regard to the Mind/Quasi-Mind discussion,
t it', it's not even necessary.
Best,Jerry R
On Fri, Feb 9, 2018 at 3:50 PM, Edwina Taborsky wrote:
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 t
of embodied ideas is what it will consist in.-
Best,
Jerry R
On Fri, Feb 9, 2018 at 3:42 PM, Edwina Taborsky wrote:
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
rely--" Different people have such
wonderfully different ways of thinking" (CP 6.462, EP 2:437; 1908).
Regards,
Jon S.
On Fri, Feb 9, 2018 at 1:40 PM, Edwina Taborsky wrote:
Jon, list - You haven't told us where and when the Quasi-Mind
enters the semiosic interaction. And why jus
y and part of the
sign/representamen. Best, Helmut 09. Februar 2018 um 19:36 Uhr
"Edwina Taborsky"
wrote:
Gary R - yes, thanks for your correction. The basic semiosic set,
as I see it, is: DO-[IO-R-II] - and often DI
I think that what is at issue for ma
f the items that I listed are indeed called Representamens in
Peirce's own usage of that term.
Regards,
Jon S.
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USAProfessional Engineer, Amateur
Philosopher, Lutheran Laymanwww.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt [1] -
twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt [2]
On Fri, Feb 9, 20
epresentamens. In
fact, according to Peirce, each of these is the same Representamen
whenever it is embodied in a Replica, although I would say that it is
part of a different Sign when the Immediate Object or Immediate
Interpretant is different.
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, U
of these is the same Representamen
whenever it is embodied in a Replica, although I would say that it is
part of a different Sign when the Immediate Object or Immediate
Interpretant is different.
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USAProfessional Engineer, Amateur
Philosopher, Luth
BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}Jon Awbrey, list:
Thanks for your post - and specifically, for your comment:
"the greater significance of the transformation he suggests at these
points is
not the shift from one type of interpreter
BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px; }As
usual - I have a different outline. I think there are multiple Signs
involved. I understand the Sign as: DO-[IO-R-DI]...and often DI.
That's the basic format.
1. Child touches hot stove: Rhematic Iconic
Jeff - I think the epistemic cut is simple. It separates one
morphological unit [or Mind-Matter] and another. After all, how could
Secondness operate without such a differential separation between A
and B? Secondness, after all, is basic to life - both organic and
inorganic. The notion of
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
do not feel obligated to
post a rebuttal. Again, I believe that it is beneficial for future
conversations that we have now zeroed in on where the divergence in
our views is primarily rooted. I will keep your alternative
interpretation in mind (no pun intended) as I continue reading and
thinking abo
, the (external)
Dynamic Interpretant of the utterer's (internal) Representamen
becomes the (external) Dynamic Object of the receiver's (internal)
Representamen. Is that right?
Thanks,
Jon S.
On Wed, Feb 7, 2018 at 7:29 AM, Edwina Taborsky wrote:
Jon - there isn't any 'gap'. There isn't any free
eflections. In your semiotic terminology, what bridges the
external gap between the internal Representamen of the utterer and
the internal Representamen of the receiver?
Regards,
Jon S.
On Tue, Feb 6, 2018 at 8:13 PM, Edwina Taborsky wrote:
Jon - I don't quite understand the poi
by the Dynamic Object? For
example, is this typed message a Dynamic Object, just like (in your
analysis) the typed word "vase"?
Thanks,
Jon S.
On Tue, Feb 6, 2018 at 7:03 PM, Edwina Taborsky wrote:
Jon - the triad is: O-R-I.
Therefore, all semiosic interaction betw
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 mediating between the external set
of sensate data of the Dynamic Object...which
the range of possible effects
that this thought-Sign may have on you.
*The Dynamic Interpretant (DI) is any actual effect that this
thought-Sign does have on you.
Regards,
Jon S.
On Tue, Feb 6, 2018 at 2:18 PM, Edwina Taborsky wrote:
Jon - no, we don't agree on your first or second anal
Amateur
Philosopher, Lutheran Laymanwww.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt [1] -
twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt [2]
On Tue, Feb 6, 2018 at 12:34 PM, Edwina Taborsky wrote:
Dan - I agree; what are the consequences of our definitions?
My view, that the representamen is an act of mediation, of
transforma
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
magined vases, or (in your
experience) my previous discussion with Gary R.--must come from
collateral observation, or the "knowledge base of the agent," and
pertains only to the Object. As collateral, it is not "located"
within the Representamen itself.
Regards,
Jon S.
On Tue, Feb 6, 201
involved in the
process or action of semiosis. Per your own quote (CP 2.311), the
Representamen is something that mediates, not the act of mediation.
Regards,
Jon S.
On Tue, Feb 6, 2018 at 1:07 PM, Edwina Taborsky wrote:
Helmut - no, Peirce's term was not 'medium' which simply means a
carr
the interpretant. Peirce
writes this many times, and it does not mean that these two roles of
the sign (patient and agent, being determined and determining) are
two dyadic relations fully representing the triadic relation by being
products of reduction out of it. Best, Helmut06. Fe
Dan - I agree; what are the consequences of our definitions?
My view, that the representamen is an act of mediation, of
transformation .."it creates in the mind of that person an equivalent
sign, or perhaps a more developed sign'. 2.228.can be exemplified
in a NON-human example
t in a genuine (irreducible) triadic relation.
Regards,
Jon S.
On Tue, Feb 6, 2018 at 10:43 AM, Edwina Taborsky wrote:
Jon, list
No- my instant reaction was that it was: A Dynamic Object.
I did not go through a semiosic triadic process...which would be to
move
that
means); rather, the Representamen is anything that stands for
something else (its Object) to something else (its Interpretant)
within a triadic Sign-relation.
Regards,
Jon S.
On Tue, Feb 6, 2018 at 9:27 AM, Edwina Taborsky wrote:
Jon, list
The four letters that you provided were jus
BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}Jon, list
The four letters that you provided were just that: four letters.
There was no semiosic process/action. Jon Awbrey correctly pointed
this out to you.
The semiosic process is triadic - and the
BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}List:
1. No, it is not a Representamen. The R is the median part of the
semiosic triad. The R is internal to the triad; not external. It is a
process, an action, not a 'thing'.
2. The 'vase' - is a
, Lutheran Laymanwww.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt [1] -
twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt [2]
On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 2:07 PM, Edwina Taborsky wrote:
Helmut - No, I consider that the bird's perception of the loud sound
is NOT the representamen. The bird has several means of 'perception'.
IO: the Immedi
1ns, matter
(subjects/objects) with 2ns, and entelechy (signs/thought) with 3ns;
e.g., NEM 4:292-300 (c.1903?), EP 2:304 (1904), CP 6.338-344
(1909). Perhaps you and Gary R. can carry on from here and have a
fruitful discussion. Enjoy the sponge cake! :-) Regards, Jon S.
On Mon, Fe
--"matter is effete mind." That is yet another can of
worms that we probably should not reopen right now.
Thanks,
Jon S.
On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 8:38 AM, Edwina Taborsky wrote:
Jon, list - there are multiple semiosic actions going on 'at the
same time' so to speak.
Object)
and the bird's response of flight (Dynamic Interpretant). Again, I
agree that the bird's habits play a role in the process, somewhere
between those two stages.
Regards,
Jon S.
On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 7:48 AM, Edwina Taborsky wrote:
Jon, Gary R, list:
OK - let's try a human
ular
Dynamic Interpretant from the range of possibilities that constitutes
the Immediate Interpretant.
4. It sounds like we agree on interpreting Peirce as holding that
substances (like an individual bird) are bundles of habits.
Regards,
Jon S.
On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 7:31 AM, Edwina Taborsky wrote:
801 - 900 of 1728 matches
Mail list logo
