Jon A, List, Your excellent quote
". . . . the Interpretant, or Third, cannot stand in a mere dyadic relation to the Object, (122915-1) but must stand in such a relation to it as the Representamen itself does." indicates that the Interpretant is triadic as well, just like the Representamen is. But in the following quote I cited yesterday, Peirce said: " . . . (A, or a sign; my addition) is also in a triadic relation to B for a purely (122915-2) passive correlate, C, this triadic relation being such as to determine *C to be in a dyadic relation, µ, to B*," (emphasis added) *30 - 1905 - SS. pp. 192-193 - Letter to Lady Welby (Draft) presumably July 1905 .* So then anything (generally in a mathematical sense) is a priman (not a priman element generally) and we might define a sign as follows: "A "sign" is anything, A, which, (1) in addition to other characters of its own, (2) stands in a dyadic relation Þ, to a purely active correlate, B, (3) and is also in a triadic relation to B for a purely passive correlate, C, this triadic relation being such as to determine C to be in a dyadic relation, µ, to B, the relation µ corresponding in a recognized way to the relation Þ." Retrieved from http://www.iupui.edu/~arisbe/rsources/76DEFS/76defs.HTM Statements (122915-1) and (122915-2) are clearly contradictory, just as the following two statements are with respect to the ambiguous picture, P, shown in Figure 1: "A is a lion and not a cat." (122915-3) "A is a cat and not a lion." (122915-4) [image: Inline image 1] Figure 1. An ambiguous picture. retrieved from the Internet. But in reality "A is both a lion and a cat." (122915-5) It seems to me that there are two possible explanations for the seeming contradiction revealed in Peirce's writings, (122915-1) and (122915-2): (i) Peirce contradicted himself. (122915-6) (ii) Peirce (most likely unknowingly or unconsciously) prescinded (122915-7) the dyadic aspect of the triadic sign. Possibility (ii) is consistent with what I called yesterday the "Peirce uncertainty principle" (PUP) or "Semiotic uncertainty principle" (PUP) in analogy to the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. I now suggest that a stronger version of PUP or SUP would be "*All signs are ambiguous to varying degrees*." (122915-8) which may be referred to as the "Sign Uncertainty Principle" (SUP) where the letter S is ambiguous. All the best. Sung On Mon, Dec 28, 2015 at 10:28 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt <jonalanschm...@gmail.com > wrote: > 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 > . > > > > > > -- Sungchul Ji, Ph.D. Associate Professor of Pharmacology and Toxicology Department of Pharmacology and Toxicology Ernest Mario School of Pharmacy Rutgers University Piscataway, N.J. 08855 732-445-4701 www.conformon.net
----------------------------- 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 .
