John, List,
I just wrote to Jon A as below, reminding him that not all signs are
triadic, according to Peirce:
"Here is one quotation of Pierce cited in Charles Peirce's Guess at the
Riddle (K. Sheriff,
Indiana University Press, Bloomington, 1994):
"A sinsign may be index or icon. As index it is 'a sign which would, at
once, (122915-1)
lose the character which makes it a sign if its object were removed, but
would
not lose that character if there were no interpretant."
So it seems to me that (122915-1) establishes the concept of a *dyadic sign*
.
Therefore,
"Not all signs are triadic."
(122915-2)"
All the best.
Sung
On Tue, Dec 29, 2015 at 1:42 PM, John Collier <colli...@ukzn.ac.za> wrote:
> The interpretant is a sign, so of course it is triadic.
>
>
>
> John Collier
>
> Professor Emeritus, UKZN
>
> http://web.ncf.ca/collier
>
>
>
> *From:* sji.confor...@gmail.com [mailto:sji.confor...@gmail.com] *On
> Behalf Of *Sungchul Ji
> *Sent:* Tuesday, 29 December 2015 2:34 PM
> *To:* PEIRCE-L
> *Subject:* Re: [PEIRCE-L] RE: signs, correlates, and triadic relations -
> meta-languages and propositions of triadicity
>
>
>
> 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
>
--
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 .
