Excellent, Doctor Deely! But please expand! How does a relation still exist -
in my own way I know it does - after "the interaction is over and done with"?
Also, expand in what way "parts" of a "semiosic sign" can "sometimes exist
independently" yet while "depending upon their position". These are all "Words,
words, words" to me unless they are also "things" I can knock my thick skull
with. For instance, Wittgenstein sits in the chair to the left of the table
with the ink well on it. may have only happened once or even never at all, and
yet I can picture it fairly precisely in my mind, draw it on a piece of paper,
or get an actor to play Wittgenstein and sit to the left of a table that has
whatever I pretend can 'play' as an ink-well. Specific spatial allotment even
in the imagination cures an number of purely verbal ills in trying to alot a
triad of sign-vehicle, significate, and interpretant in the map or picture of
"the case of the facts of the matter" or even a "crime scene" where one has
unspeaking facts that a detective makes "speak" only by constructing a "story"
- or, to be classy, "theory" - and in factuality has a thousand real "things"
interfering with his literary or philosophical construction of a murder mystery
made out of a literal picture of 'things' (facts) that just sit there (Dasein)
- absolutely mute - but constructing relations far more important than the
bare-assed reality of the crime scene photograph on which, nonetheless, death
and life literally hang.
Truly,Gary C. Moore
From: "Deely, John N." <jnde...@stthom.edu>
To: Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca>; Gary Fuhrman <g...@gnusystems.ca>;
"biosemiot...@lists.ut.ee" <biosemiot...@lists.ut.ee>; 'Peirce-L'
<PEIRCE-L@list.iupui.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2014 2:59 PM
Subject: RE: [PEIRCE-L] Re: [biosemiotics:7750] Re: Peirce categories
<!--#yiv4664051953 _filtered #yiv4664051953 {font-family:Calibri;panose-1:2 15
5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;} _filtered #yiv4664051953 {font-family:Tahoma;panose-1:2 11 6
4 3 5 4 4 2 4;} _filtered #yiv4664051953 {font-family:"Trebuchet MS";panose-1:2
11 6 3 2 2 2 2 2 4;}#yiv4664051953 #yiv4664051953 p.yiv4664051953MsoNormal,
#yiv4664051953 li.yiv4664051953MsoNormal, #yiv4664051953
div.yiv4664051953MsoNormal
{margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New
Roman", "serif";}#yiv4664051953 a:link, #yiv4664051953
span.yiv4664051953MsoHyperlink
{color:blue;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv4664051953 a:visited, #yiv4664051953
span.yiv4664051953MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{color:purple;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv4664051953 p
{margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New
Roman", "serif";}#yiv4664051953 p.yiv4664051953MsoAcetate, #yiv4664051953
li.yiv4664051953MsoAcetate, #yiv4664051953 div.yiv4664051953MsoAcetate
{margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:8.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",
"sans-serif";}#yiv4664051953 span.yiv4664051953BalloonTextChar
{font-family:"Tahoma", "sans-serif";}#yiv4664051953 span.yiv4664051953hoenzb
{}#yiv4664051953 span.yiv4664051953EmailStyle20 {font-family:"Trebuchet MS",
"sans-serif";color:black;}#yiv4664051953 span.yiv4664051953EmailStyle22
{font-family:"Calibri", "sans-serif";color:#1F497D;}#yiv4664051953
.yiv4664051953MsoChpDefault {font-size:10.0pt;} _filtered #yiv4664051953
{margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}#yiv4664051953 div.yiv4664051953WordSection1
{}-->Ah well, Edwina, “interaction” is not relation, but what relationresults
from. Thus the relation continues to exist as an offspring of the interaction
when the interaction is over and done with. And of course the “parts” of a
“semiosic sign” can sometimes exist independently of the (one) triadic relation
under which they (those “parts” or “members”) were, depending upon their
position under the triadic relation, sign-vehicle (the foreground term or
element), significate (the ‘object signified’), or interpretant. From:
Edwina Taborsky [mailto:tabor...@primus.ca]
Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2014 14:41
To: Gary Fuhrman; biosemiot...@lists.ut.ee; 'Peirce-L'
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: [biosemiotics:7750] Re: Peirce categories Ah
well, Gary F, I could say that I'm baffled by your inability to understand my
analysis but I don't have that nasty streak in me to say that to someone else-
and imply that they are intellectually or even psychologically incompetent and
as such have an 'inability to see or admit'...etc.. And of course, I disagree
that my interpretation is in 'direct contradiction to the statements
themselves'. I consider that you don't understand the Relation - and Peirce
has written extensively of them. They are NOT composed of 'members' (where do
you get that from?). A relation is an interaction between nodal sites (the
Dynamic Object is one such site; the Immediate Object is another; the
Representament, the three Interpretants...) but they do not exist, per se, in
themselves. They are part, the perimeters, of an informational interaction;
that interaction is a Relation. ...Peirce deals with these
interactions/Relations in, eg, 8.335 where he writes "in respect to their
relations to their dynamic objects, I divide signs into Iconcs, Indices and
Symbols...and in "in regard to its relation to its signified interpretant, a
sign is either a Rheme, a Dicent, or an Argument". (8.337). I always refer to
the Sign (capital S) as an irreducible triad. I agree with Peirce's statement
that "a sign therefore has a triadic relation to its Object and to its
Interpretant" (8.343)....BUT, as he does, if you take that triad apart, you can
see that the Sign is complex and made up of a dynamic information process of
THREE Relations....And the Sign (capital S) does NOT have 'three members', for
none of the three parts of the semiosic sign can exist, per se, on its
own...while a 'member' certainly implies that it can. As Peirce says, these
parts of the Sign '"neither of which is an individual thing" (8.334) I think
it best, in the interests of integrity, that you write only for yourself, and
not move into argumentum ad populum and speak for 'everybody', as you do in
your last sentence. You are free, of course, to think that I am someone unable
or unwilling to agree with you - but, that should hardly bother either of us.
Edwina
----- Original Message ----- From:Gary Fuhrman To:biosemiot...@lists.ut.ee
;'Peirce-L' Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2014 2:07 PM Subject: RE: [PEIRCE-L]
Re: [biosemiotics:7750] Re: Peirce categories Edwina, as always, I’m baffled
by your inability to see (or admit) that your “interpretation” of this and
other Peirce statements is in direct contradiction to the statements
themselves. You say that the “Sign (capital S) is a complex and irreducible
triad of three Relations.” Peirce says that the Interpretant must “assume
the same triadic relation to its Object” in which the “Sign, or Representamen”
stands to the same Object. One triadic relation. You on the other hand say
that “Repre-Obj” is one relation and “Rep-Interpretant” is another. (You also
call “Rep in itself” a “relation”, to make three, but that’s a very odd sort of
“relation”). The reason that “people keep saying you support dyads” is that
your three “relations” have only two “members” each, to use Peirce’s term. A
triadic relation has three members, not two; and a complexus of three dyadic
(two-member) relations is not, according to Peirce, “a triadic relation.” If
you can’t see that, you can’t see it, but I’m sure everybody else can, and
that’s why nobody agrees that your nomenclature and analysis of triadic
relations is radically different from Peirce’s. gary f. From: Edwina
Taborsky [mailto:tabor...@primus.ca]
Sent: 16-Dec-14 1:15 PM
To: biosemiot...@lists.ut.ee; Peirce-L
Subject: [PEIRCE-L] Re: [biosemiotics:7750] Re: Peirce categories Gary R - I
think we've been through this discussion before as well. As I said, I
consider that the triadic Sign (capital S) is a complex and irreducible triad
of three Relations. I've listed them: Repre-Obj; Rep in itself;
Rep-Interpretant. Notice the pivotal role of the Representamen! It's the
foundation of all three Relations - but- neither the Object nor the
Interpretant are reducible to the Reprsentamen. The reason for the three
Relations is that each one can be in a different categorical mode. (I'm
repeating myself) The quote that you provide, Gary, is interpreted
differently by you and me. You understand the term 'First' to mean in the
categorical mode of Firstness, whereas I understand it to mean that the
existential unit (let's say, a cell) which is already a triadic Sign, picks up
incoming stimuli via its Representamen-Object Relation. That's what FIRST
happens. Then, SECOND, it mediates this input data of the Object within the
habits of the Representamen...and passes that for further 'fine-tuning' via the
various Interpretants (Third step). Obviously, none of this triadic process
operates within dyads. Where do you come up with any sense that I support
dyadic relations? I've consistently rejected such - and it's weird, but people
keep saying that I support dyads! Weird. And I fully agree with the last
sentence - Peirce says it perfectly -"That is the reason the Interpretant, or
Third, cannot stand in a mere dyadic relation to the Object, but must stand in
such a relation to it as the Representamen itself does. 2.274" After all - a
dyadic relation of the Interpretant to the Object - is Saussurian and
mechanical and utterly ignores the vital mediative and evolutionary role of the
Representamen, or the 'habits of formation'. I note that you, in this post,
refer to 'three relation' (singular) while in other posts, you have referred to
relationS (plural). Ah well. Edwina
----- Original Message ----- From:Gary Richmond To:biosemiot...@lists.ut.ee
Cc:Peirce-L Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2014 12:38 PM Subject:
[biosemiotics:7750] Re: Peirce categories Edwina, John, lists, I have
tended to strongly agree with John in this matter, principally because of this
and similar passages.
A Sign, or Representamen, is a First which stands in such a genuine triadic
relation to a Second, called its Object, as to be capable of determining a
Third, called its Interpretant, to assume the same triadic relation to its
Object in which it stands itself to the same Object. The triadic relation is
genuine, that is its three members are bound together by it in a way that does
not consist in any complexus of dyadic relations. That is the reason the
Interpretant, or Third, cannot stand in a mere dyadic relation to the Object,
but must stand in such a relation to it as the Representamen itself does. 2.274
As I see it, the 'three relation' (to the sign itself, its object, its
interpretent) are for the purposes of analysis only because "the triadic
relation is genuine" such that "its three members are bound together by it in a
way that does not consist of any complexus of dyadic relations." So my
question is, Edwina, how do you interpretent 2.274? Best, Gary R
-----------------------------
PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L
to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go topeirc...@list.iupui.edu . To
UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but tol...@list.iupui.edu with the
line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More
athttp://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
-----------------------------
PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L
to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To
UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the
line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
-----------------------------
PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L
to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To
UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the
line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
