BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px; } Jon, list
1) The Representamen does carry the general habits; that is, where are these generals located in a 'thing'? I'll take the example of a cell; its habits, which function to mould its material content and its interactions with other cells - are, as I understand it, operative within Thirdness and carried within the Representamen. So- I see this action as a Relation . But -agreed, we'll leave it for now. 2) I agree with your second paragraph. - just a few quibbles.. JON> "My understanding of our recent agreement on terminology was that going forward, we would always use "Sign" to refer to the (internal) triad of Immediate Object, Representamen, and Immediate Interpretant; and we would always characterize a Sign in this sense as the first correlate of a triadic relation in which the Dynamic Object and Dynamic Intepretant are the other two (external) correlates, such that every Sign must be determined by a Dynamic Object, and every Sign is capable of determining a Dynamic Interpretant (but might never actually do so). Are we still on the same page here?" EDWINA: BUT - to be clear, I still see this internal triad as ONE SET of three irreducible Relations. I suspect that you don't see this internal triad as made up of Relations, while I still see it that way - although the bond is so tight that none of the three can be seen as 'individual relations'; i.e., not as THREE Relations. I agree with its being the first correlate of a larger triadic Set, made up of the other two external correlates in addition to this basic Internal triad. These two external correlates are not bonded within the triad, as the interactions are within the Internal Triad. That leaves them open. I agree with the necessary determination of the DO, and the Sign [that internal triad] being capable of determining a DI - but not necessarily doing so. So- most of your outline I agree with; I'm just still having trouble with that Internal Triad - which although I agree is ONE set - and probably operates within ONE modal category - I still want to be able to differentiate each 'node' so to speak - even though none of the three 'nodes' [ Immediate Object-Representamen-Immediate Interpretant] can have any actuality except within that internal bond. 3) As to your last question - I think I see what you are talking about - but, I think the term 'relation' needs more unpacking. Edwina -- This message is virus free, protected by Primus - Canada's largest alternative telecommunications provider. http://www.primus.ca On Wed 12/04/17 12:12 PM , Jon Alan Schmidt jonalanschm...@gmail.com sent: Edwina, List: I remain uncomfortable with calling the Representamen a "relation" and associating it with habits, but we can set that aside for now. My understanding of our recent agreement on terminology was that going forward, we would always use "Sign" to refer to the (internal) triad of Immediate Object, Representamen, and Immediate Interpretant; and we would always characterize a Sign in this sense as the first correlate of a triadic relation in which the Dynamic Object and Dynamic Intepretant are the other two (external) correlates, such that every Sign must be determined by a Dynamic Object, and every Sign is capable of determining a Dynamic Interpretant (but might never actually do so). Are we still on the same page here? My question comes up because we (or at least I) typically think of a Sign from a logical standpoint as a subject, rather than a relation. Every Sign has relations, of course, both internal (Oi-R-Ii) and external (Od-S-Id). We also sometimes talk about "the Sign relation," usually meaning the triadic relation of which the Sign, Dynamic Object, and Dynamic Interpretant are the three correlates. What I am asking now is whether there is such a thing as a Sign that is itself a relation. Thanks, Jon S. On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 9:56 AM, Edwina Taborsky wrote: 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 [2] On Wed 12/04/17 10:14 AM , Jon Alan Schmidt jonalanschm...@gmail.com [3] 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 [4] - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt [5] Links: ------ [1] http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'tabor...@primus.ca\',\'\',\'\',\'\') [2] http://www.primus.ca [3] http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'jonalanschm...@gmail.com\',\'\',\'\',\'\') [4] http://www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt [5] 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 .