Janos: I don't agree that the triad requires the representamen to be always
'interpreted as a quality', i.e., in the mode of Firstness. If you take a
look at the ten classes of signs (2.256 as outlined in 1903), you will see
that in only one of these ten classes is the Representamen in a mode of
Firstness. It is in a mode of Secondness in three, and in a mode of
Thirdness in six classes.
Edwina
----- Original Message -----
From: "Janos Sarbo" <ja...@cs.ru.nl>
To: <peirce-l@list.iupui.edu>
Sent: Monday, January 26, 2015 4:12 AM
Subject: [PEIRCE-L] A question about the triadic relation of Sign
Lists,
I have a question about triadic relation of Sign. If I correctly
understand this concept, the generation of an irreducible triadic
relation of representamen, object and interpretant, requires the
representamen to be interpreted as a quality. The arising triadic
relation must be a (novel) quality as well. This brings me to my
question: How is the concept of a Sign (and so thirdness) different from
the concept of a qualitative change?
Best regards,
Janos Sarbo
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------
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 .
