Jon - I see the representamen as 'Being thus connected with three things, the
ground, the object, and the interpretant" 2.229. These, in my view, are the
three relations. The representamen is the key agent, for ALL three of these
'connections' or relations must involve the representamen.
There is the representamen "as it is in itself' (and we have three terms for
its nature as it is in itself: qualsign, sinsign, legisign) 8.334. And, the R
"in respect to their relations to their dynamic objects" 8.335 (icon, index,
symbol); and the R 'in regard to its relation to its signified interpretant"
8.337 (rheme, dicent, argument).
I see the R-O and R-I relations as providing breadth, while the R-R relation
provides depth. The Representamen is a key agent/function in the semiosic
process; it is not a mechanical transference of object data to interpretation.
It is the ground, the evolved set of habits, the knowledge base of the system
in which semiosis is taking place. It transforms input data from the object via
its knowledge-mediation...to result in an interpretation. As Peirce writes, "a
sign mediates between the interpretant sign and its object" 8.332 -
understanding the first term of 'sign' here as the representamen. Without this
key process that is the role of the Representamen - our world would have no
habits of organization, it would be pure randomness. And as Peirce also pointed
out, these habits evolve...
As Peirce wrote in the quote you provided, there are THREE nodes:
representamen, object, interpretant.
Now, the interaction between the Interpretant and the Object is not, to my
view, within the first basic triad. Note that it does NOT involve the
Representamen - which I consider a necessary semiosic process. It provides a
necessary inductive reference whereby the Interpretant does not stand alienated
from objective reality but must - not necessarily now - but at some time in the
future - reference that object truthfully. How does it do this? By generating
more triadic signs; that is, the Interpretant generates more triadic signs.
As he points out, the I-O can't be a dyadic relation; and it can't mimic the
R-O relation....Instead, the Interpretant "must be capable of determining a
Third (Interpretant) on 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 (Interpretant). All this must be equally be true of the
Third's Thirds and so on endlessly..EPp 273.
The way I read this, is that the Interpretant, a result of that first basic
semiosic triad, then generates more triads - thus, involving the Representamen
- and more Interpretants, to arrive at, in some future time, the truth of the
Object.
Edwina
----- Original Message -----
From: Jon Alan Schmidt
To: Edwina Taborsky ; peirce-l@list.iupui.edu
Sent: Monday, December 28, 2015 10:28 PM
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 .
