Gary R.:
I am fine with taking a break for a while from analyzing examples of
semiosis, especially if the alternative is an in-depth discussion of
"Pragmatism." As I said once before, I encourage you not to limit that
study to EP 2:398-433, but also include CP 5.467-481. That was a different
dr
Jon, list,
You wrote:
JAS: Hence we seem to be converging at last on classifying the girl's
scream as a genuine Sign, both for her and for the mother, at least from a
certain point of view. However, I am still not sure whether to treat it as
a Replica of one Sign or of two different Signs. Iron
Gary R., List:
I was about to send an addendum to my previous post when I received your
reply--for which I am grateful, because it prompted me to hold off a bit
and reconsider a couple of things. I agree that we make a good team in
this discussion, given our opposing proclivities for abstract vs.
Jon S, list,
You wrote:
JAS: In your original presentation of this thought experiment, the child
was a toddler and did not scream "Maman" or any other recognizable word,
but simply "Aie!" As such, I took it to be an involuntary reflex, such as
any of us likely would exclaim when surprised by pai
Gary R., List:
In your original presentation of this thought experiment, the child was a
toddler and did not scream "Maman" or any other recognizable word, but
simply "Aie!" As such, I took it to be an involuntary reflex, such as any
of us likely would exclaim when surprised by pain, although as
Jon, list,
You wrote:
I guess I can boil down the main feedback that I am seeking to two
questions about the girl's scream.
For the child, as an *involuntary *reflex, is it a Dynamic Interpretant
produced by triadic semiosis, or merely an effect produced by a series of
dyadic causes?
. . .
when
Gary R., List:
I guess I can boil down the main feedback that I am seeking to two
questions about the girl's scream.
1. For the child, as an *involuntary *reflex, is it a Dynamic
Interpretant produced by triadic semiosis, or merely an effect produced by
a series of dyadic causes?
2. F
Jon, list
You asked of your analysis of the child and mother example:
JAS: Does any of this make sense? To be honest, it all still feels highly
conjectural to me, so I am expecting (hopefully constructive) criticism.
I am sorry to say that your complex analysis does not make a lot of sense
to m
Gary R., List:
Thank you for your characteristically thoughtful and thought-provoking
response. Up until now, I have been considering all of this with the
mindset that the child's scream must be analyzed as *one *Sign. Upon
reflection, I realize that such an approach fails to take proper account
Jon, Edwina, list,
Jon, while I am tending to agree with you on much of your analysis, I still
can't agree with you in the matter of the Dynamic Object for the mother.
You wrote:
JAS: In this case, I am wary of drawing a sharp distinction between "the
child's semiosis" and "the mother's semiosis"
List:
In an effort to reduce the quantity of my individual messages, I am going
to try combining multiple replies into one post.
Gary R.:
1. I agree that even persons can lose, or deliberately set aside, their
capacity for Habit-change. Hopefully it is evident that I am still very
much open to
Jon, list,
1. I am inclined to agree with you on this. As I understand it, the end
of semiosis--both its final cause and its termination--is the production of
a habit; a substance is a bundle of habits; and a material substance is a
bundle of habits that are so inveterate, it has effectively los
Gary R., List:
1. I am inclined to agree with you on this. As I understand it, the end
of semiosis--both its final cause and its termination--is the production of
a habit; a substance is a bundle of habits; and a material substance is a
bundle of habits that are so inveterate, it has effectively
Jon S, Edwina, list,
For now, just some preliminary thoughts on Jon's several bullet points. In
response to Edwina, Jon wrote:
1. It seems like we both struggle, although in different ways, with
talking about Signs as individual "things"--like "a stone on a sandy
beach," or "an organism" trying
Edwina, List:
1. It seems like we both struggle, although in different ways, with
talking about Signs as individual "things"--like "a stone on a sandy
beach," or "an organism" trying to survive--vs. talking about Signs within
a continuous process. That is why I find your tendency to use the term
BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}Gary R, list
Thanks for your comments.
1] Yes, my point is that there is no such thing as an isolate sign.
Even a stone on a sandy beach is in interaction. It is
Mind-as-Matter, and this matter/mind is in
16 matches
Mail list logo
