Jon - yes, I agree. Existentiality functions only within the triad - as
embodied in 'current time and space'. That's why, in my view, Peirce said that
a semiosic triad that lacked the third term, the Interpretant - and that means
not simply 'not now' but 'in the future'...is not a genuine Sign.
Now, with regard to the triads of the 'qualisign' and 'legisign' - ...and I'm
not sure which triads you are referring to...The qualisign is of course,
operative totally within the mode of Firstness (Rhematic Iconic Qualisign). It
is a possibility - and possibilities are not existential. But are they Real -
understanding realism as referring to universal generals or potentialities. OK
- I'd say 'yes.
With regard to the legisign - the pure Thirdness - it too refers to
generalities. So, again, 'yes'.
As for the bullet-hole, in my view, it is already as you note a triadic sign
but I consider that this triad needs no human agent to view it. After all, the
tree trunk has experienced the effect of the bullet in its interior. That's
certainly an immediate interpretant of the gunshot (besides the noise, the
odour of gunpowder, etc)..and several dynamic interpretants because of the
material effect of the bullet on the tree.
Edwina
----- Original Message -----
From: Jon Alan Schmidt
To: Edwina Taborsky
Cc: PEIRCE-L
Sent: Tuesday, December 29, 2015 8:48 PM
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] RE: signs, correlates, and triadic relations
Edwina, List:
In Peirce's terms, would it not be right to say that the representamen,
object, and interpretant need not EXIST at all? A qualisign or legisign does
not exist unless and until it is embodied, but we can still talk about it as a
REAL triadic sign apart from any such particular instantiation. The
lead-pencil streak exists as a triadic sign of a geometrical line, but its
object is purely hypothetical. The bullet-hole exists as a triadic sign of a
gunshot, but its (immediate) interpretant is never actualized unless someone
attributes it as such.
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman
www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
On Tue, Dec 29, 2015 at 7:11 PM, Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca> wrote:
Sung, please don't tell me what I meant. You aren't The Teacher here, but
just a debater among debaters - and one who hasn't read Peirce but chooses to
consider that his views on Peirce are always correct.
I repeat - the 9 Relations are not dyads; that means that they aren't
dyadic relations because a dyad operates between two existential nodes - and
the Object-Representamen-Interpretant do not exist 'per se' each in themselves.
They exist within the interactions...Such semiosic interactions may not be
with a human agent; a cell can semiosically interact with another cell and
needs no human involvement.
As Peirce noted, the semiosic triad is NOT made up of a collection of
dyadic relations. Your mechanical reductionism is not Peircean.
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 .
