John, List: Well, the passage that I quoted previously continues, "Nor can the triadic relation in which the Third stands be merely similar to that in which the First stands, for this would make the relation of the Third to the First a degenerate Secondness merely. The Third must, indeed, stand in such a relation, and thus must be capable of determining a Third of its own; but besides that, it must have a second triadic relation in which the Representamen, or rather the relation thereof to its Object, shall be its own (the Third's) Object, and must be capable of determining a Third to this relation. All this must equally be true of the Third's Thirds and so on endlessly ..." (EP2:273) Not sure if this clarifies things, or just muddies the waters further, which is why I hesitated to include it initially.
Regards, Jon On Mon, Dec 28, 2015 at 9:58 PM, John Collier <colli...@ukzn.ac.za> wrote: > Jon, List, > > > > The interpretant is itself a sign, so at least implicitly there is a > separate triad (and on to infinity, given Peirce’s continuity of thought): > > 1902 | Carnegie Institution Correspondence | NEM 4:54 > > “A sign is something, *A*, which brings something, *B*, its *interpretant* > sign, > determined or created by it, into the same sort of correspondence (or a > lower implied sort) with something, *C*, its *object*, as that in which > itself stands to *C*.” > > > > I think “same” in the quote you give has to be understood as the same > kind, not the identical relation. The above quote makes this more clear. > > > > John Collier > > Professor Emeritus, UKZN > > http://web.ncf.ca/collier > > > > *From:* Jon Alan Schmidt [mailto:jonalanschm...@gmail.com] > *Sent:* Tuesday, 29 December 2015 5:28 AM > *To:* Edwina Taborsky; peirce-l@list.iupui.edu > *Subject:* Re: [PEIRCE-L] RE: signs, correlates, and triadic relations - > meta-languages and propositions of triadicity > > > > Edwina, List: > > > > Is it not the case, at least according to Peirce, that the > interpretant-object relation is necessarily the same as the > representamen-object relation? If so, then there is no need for a separate > trichotomy to characterize it. > > > > "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 that 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." (EP2:272-273) > > > > Regards, > > > Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA > > Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman > > www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt > > > > On Mon, Dec 28, 2015 at 7:14 PM, Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca> > wrote: > > John, list: > > That's an extremely interesting suggestion, that the 'third relation' is > that between the interpretant and the object. I have trouble with that, as > the 9 relations (parameters according to Gary R) which are differentiated > in terms of the modal category, do not refer to this interpretant-object > relation. > > > > They refer to the representamen-in-itself, which I consider to be a > relation-of-depth (providing an evolved over time generalization/set of > habits); then, to the relation between the representamen-object; and the > relation between the representamen-interpretant. > > I consider the representamen, which must act as 'mind-mediator' a vital > relation, bringing its informational depth to deal with the R-O and R-I > transitions. > > > > But the interpretant-object interaction - is it a relation? What mediates > this interaction? I'm not denying its importance, for objective > referentiality is vital to validate our experiences - otherwise we live > within a purely rhetorical, fictional world detached from reality. > > > > Edwina >
----------------------------- 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 .
