Edwina, Frances, List, This may possible be, at least in part, something of a linguistic dispute. If one sees the Representamen as 'sign' (one of Peirce's uses of the term), then, one could argue that, say, a rhematic iconic qualisign (sign 1 in the 10-fold sign classification) hasn't any meaning apart from its embodiment in some actual (or potential) semiosis. But this, it seems to me, is only the case in a strictly analytical or formal sense.
If, however,one employs 'sign' to mean the fullness of the triadic semiosis (another richer way in which Peirce employs the term), then as soon as an *actual *interpretant is involved, *there is 'meaning'* in some sense (at least in some primitive sense, for example, as even in Peirce's sunflower example which Edwina occasionally refers to). I must admit that I still have some trouble with Edwina's requirement that a sign be defined as the *three* relations, "input/mediation/output*" *because that formulation doesn't seem to me to convey an essential characteristic of a Peircean sign (taken in the broader sense), namely, that the interpretant shall stand in the same relation to the object as the representamen itself stands. This again brings up the question of what constitutes a *genuine triadic relation* in Peircean semiotics; or, in a slighly different formulation, is it one relation or three? I recall that John Collier and others on this list, including me, have argued that it is *one genuine triadic* relation, and that seeing semiosis--especially in consideration of its continuity--as three relations (such as input/ mediation/ output) suggests a kind of linear and, indeed, dyadic character. Perhaps I'm just not seeing this clearly enough, so I'm simply ask you, Edwina, does your "three relations" model square with Peirce's seeming insistence that …a sign is something, *A*, which brings something, *B*, its *interpretant* sign determined or created by it, *into the same sort of correspondence with something, C, its object, as that in which itself stands to C*. (emphasis added. NEM 4:20-1 in the *Commens* dictionary) and if so, how does it? I do agree with Edwina that talk of a 'sign vehicle' 'bearing' some 'sign object' smacks perhaps of semiology, but perhaps even more so of Morris' syntactics (I believe it was Morris who introduced the term "sign vehicle" into semiotics). Best, Gary [image: Gary Richmond] *Gary Richmond* *Philosophy and Critical Thinking* *Communication Studies* *LaGuardia College of the City University of New York* *C 745* *718 482-5690 <718%20482-5690>* On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 2:35 PM, Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> wrote: > Frances - I don't consider your outline as Peircean semiosis but as > semiology, where an object is a sign only when it REFERS TO something else. > That's dyadic, and views the Sign as simply a kind of metaphor of something > else. That's not, in my view, Peirce. > > My view is that the object itself, in its own composition, exists as a > Sign. It is a triadic process. A Sign is a unit of matter/energy that > exists as a Form in interaction with other Forms. There must be a triadic > set of Relations: input/mediation/output. Without that triad - it's not a > Sign. > > Nothing exists 'per se' on its own in isolation but is networked with > other matter - whether it be one molecule interacting with another > molecule, one cell with another cell; one sound with another sound. It is > this continuity of Form which enables this continuity of Connections [see > Peirce's outline of the development of habits' [1.412 A guess at the > riddle]. This is the process of semiosis - that continuous formulation of > discrete units formed within a habit, which are in interaction with other > discrete units. As formed and networked, [which is not at all similar to > referencing] they are therefore 'meaningful'. > > Edwina > > > ----- Original Message ----- From: <[email protected]> > To: "'Peirce List'" <[email protected]> > Sent: Tuesday, March 01, 2016 1:57 PM > Subject: RE: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Abduction, Deduction, Induction, Analogy, > Inquiry > > > Frances to Edwina and Listers--- You partly stated in effect recently that > a sign "is" meaning, and that if a sign "has" no meaning then it is not a > sign, but is say mere noise. This seems wrong to me from a Peircean stance, > but perhaps others here can clarify the jargon and with some references. My > grasp of the matter is that in semiosis a "sign vehicle" (like say even > just noise) is an ordinary object that at least represents some other > referred object and to some interpreted effect, and to any kind of signer. > In other words, the "sign vehicle" must informatively "bear" some "sign > object" for some "sign effect" to be a sign overall, but that the "sign > vehicle" need not "yield" or "endure" any meaning at all to be such a sign, > even if it may or can or will "yield" some meaning to an able signer. Any > meaningless sign might therefore be a crude sign or not much of a sign, but > it will in any event be a sign to some degree. > > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > >> ----------------------------- >> PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON >> PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to >> [email protected] . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L >> but to [email protected] with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the >> BODY of the message. More at >> http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm . >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > ----------------------------- > PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON > PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to > [email protected] . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L > but to [email protected] with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the > BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm > . > > > > > >
----------------------------- PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to [email protected] . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
