Gary, List, Time and again Peirce refers to his logic of relatives as the means necessary to understand the more complex and subtle issues in his theory of inquiry and his theory of signs. I find this to be good advice.
The best antidote for confusion about triadic sign relations and the three basic modes of inference can be found in study of his early papers on the logic of relatives and the logic of science. His first expeditions, for all their rough and exploratory character, perhaps even because of it, give far more concrete examples of relations in general and triadic sign relations in particular, plus a better idea of actual practice in the ways of inquiry, than the often detached abstractions of his later speculations and summations. From what I've seen through many years of watching people struggle with Peirce, it is almost impossible to get what Peirce is talking about in his later work without getting a foothold on the concrete foundation he laid down at the outset of his work. I proposed some time ago that a close reading of Peirce's 1870 “Logic of Relatives” could be extremely beneficial in understanding and applying Peirce's ideas to real problems. It's where I began way back when and I have already put my own notes on the foothills of the paper on the web several times, the current best version on the InterSciWiki, here: http://intersci.ss.uci.edu/wiki/index.php/Peirce's_1870_Logic_Of_Relatives Regards, Jon On 3/1/2016 4:42 PM, Gary Richmond wrote: > 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>* > -- academia: http://independent.academia.edu/JonAwbrey my word press blog: http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/ inquiry list: http://stderr.org/pipermail/inquiry/ isw: http://intersci.ss.uci.edu/wiki/index.php/JLA oeiswiki: http://www.oeis.org/wiki/User:Jon_Awbrey facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/JonnyCache
----------------------------- 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 .
