BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}Jon - This is part of an argument we've had before. It depends on
the terminology.
For you, the term sign refers to what I term the Representamen,
which I consider the Relation of Mediation - and, which holds the
habits developed within Thirdness [it can, of course, be in a mode of
Firstness or Secondness].
I consider the triad, Sign [capital S] - to be the triad of
Object-Representamen-Interpretant - and acknowledge that the Object
can be the Immediate Object and the Interpretant can be potential.
But, it remains a triad.
And - what does the term relation mean?
So- "can a relation be a Sign'? It depends what you mean by each
term.
For me - the interactions, i.e., relations, are vital within the
semiosic process [which I see as an active process anyway]. I
consider that there are three key relations within the triad; that
between the R-O; between the R-I, and the Representamen in itself.
The Representamen -in-itself is, in my view, a Relation, seeking out
its habits of organization and linking them to the object and
transforming them into the interpretant.
So- at first thought, I'd say that A single relation can't be a
Sign, since the Sign requires a networked set of triadic Relations.
But - is a law of Nature a Relation I'd say, yes, since the Law of
Nature operates as the Representamen, in a mode of Thirdness.
Edwina
--
This message is virus free, protected by Primus - Canada's
largest alternative telecommunications provider.
http://www.primus.ca
On Wed 12/04/17 10:14 AM , Jon Alan Schmidt jonalanschm...@gmail.com
sent:
List:
I was finally able to borrow Aaron Bruce Wilson's new book, Peirce's
Empiricism: Its Roots and Its Originality, via interlibrary loan this
week. Previously I could only access the Google preview, but from
that I could tell that the whole thing would be well worth reading.
He points out in chapter 2 that a law of nature is a relation, which
leads me to pose a new question--can a relation be a Sign? Again, I
am referring to the relation itself, not its representation in
verbal, diagrammatic, or other form.
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USAProfessional Engineer, Amateur
Philosopher, Lutheran Laymanwww.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt [1] -
twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt [2]
Links:
------
[1] http://www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt
[2] http://twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
-----------------------------
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 .
