BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px; }see
my comments
--
This message is virus free, protected by Primus - Canada's
largest alternative telecommunications provider.
http://www.primus.ca
On Wed 12/04/17 1:59 PM , Jon Alan Schmidt jonalanschm...@gmail.com
sent:
Edwina, List:
1) ET: 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.
Peirce ultimately did not distinguish between the Immediate
Object/Interpretant and their relations to the Representamen when
making the longer lists of trichotomies for Sign classification, and
we now agree that the three of them together (as a triad) constitute
the Sign. As such, I am inclined to think of them as more analytic
than actual; specifically, as constraints on how the Sign can
represent its Dynamic Object and determine a Dynamic Interpretant.
EDWINA: Agreed - more analytic than actual. And agreed, acting as
constraints on HOW the Sign [that internal triad] represents the DO
and determines the DI. But, as constraints - isn't there an aspect of
ACTUAL force/behaviour - within the constraint?
2) ET: As to your last question - I think I see what you are
talking about - but, I think the term 'relation' needs more
unpacking.
Probably so. Peirce seems to have used "relation" as a close
synonym of "predicate," but I would welcome further suggestions for
what it means to say that a law of nature is a relation and/or that a
relation is a Sign.
EDWINA: A law is a habit; i.e., operative in Thirdness. I can see
this as a predicate, for 'a proposition can have any number of
subjects but can have but one predicate which is invariably general"
5.151..But what about: ."the interpretant of a proposition is its
predicate" 5.474. This moves the laws, so to speak, which I have
located in the Representamen - to the Interpretant! So- I have no
idea...for I tend to see the Interpretant as a result of the actions
of the Laws.
Thanks,
Jon S.
On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 11:32 AM, Edwina Taborsky wrote:
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 [2]
On Wed 12/04/17 12:12 PM , Jon Alan Schmidt jonalanschm...@gmail.com
[3] 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 [4]
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 [5] -
twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt [6]
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.primus.ca
[5] http://www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt
[6] 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 .
