Edwina, List: Again, my understanding is that the three-spoke diagram represents one triadic relation. As such, it corresponds to only one of the ten trichotomies of 1908--the very last one, "the Triadic Relation of the Sign to the Dynamical Object and to its Normal Interpretant" (EP 2:483), which divides the Sign "As to the Nature of the Assurance of the Utterance" (EP 2:490) into Instinct/Experience/Form. Hence the spokes *themselves *are all in the *same *mode, even though the *correlates *at their ends and the *dyadic* *relations *between those correlates can be in *different *modes.
By contrast, the three trichotomies of 1903 are for "the sign in itself" as Qualisign/Sinsign/Legisign, "the relation of the sign to its Object" as Icon/Index/Symbol, and how "its Interpretant represents it" as Rheme/Dicent/Argument (EP 2:291-292). Peirce subsequently characterized the latter as "the Relation of the Sign to the Normal Interpretant" (EP 2:483), but I have been suggesting recently that it should be associated instead with the relation of the Sign to the Dynamic Interpretant. To be honest, given that the Sign relation is genuinely *triadic*, I have never fully understood why Peirce initially classified Signs on the basis of one correlate and two *dyadic *relations. Perhaps others on the List can shed some light on that. Regards, Jon S. On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 6:20 PM, Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca> wrote: > Jon, list - thanks for your comments. A rapid response: > > 1) The reason I stick to the three relations - see Peirce's 8.335,8.337 > comments on the relations to the Dynamic Object, Relations to the > Interpretant..but the reason is that each of the three 'spikes' so to > speak, can be in a different modal category. So, in a rhematic indexical > legisign, the Representamen spoke can be in Thirdness; the relation to the > Dynamic Object in a mode of Secondness; the relation to the Dy. > Interpretant in a mode of Firstness. That's why I refer to relations in the > plural. These interactions most certainly are NOT independent - and my use > of the plural of RelationS doesn't imply their independence. Instead, it > implies their modal differentiation within this singular semiosic > interaction. > > 2) The problem I have with the linear image of the movement from DO to > DI...and Peirce often uses it, which is one relation with three correlates, > is that I also am interested in the morphological result of the semiosis. > Not simply in the passing of X via Y to Z. But the physiological FORM. > That is - referring to my oft-quoted 4.551 'Mind ..in crystal, in the work > of bees'...etc... I am considering that the Sign, that triad, takes on a > FORM. This FORM is the full Sign. So, a cell - let's say a single cell - is > the semiosic Form, a Sign. This is the result of the interaction of the > Representamen HABITS interacting with many Dynamic Objects [water, > nutrients, chemicals, etc etc]...which are then transformed via the HABITS > held within the Representamen into the Dynamic Interpretant - that CELL. > BUT - all three parts of this whole FORM/SIGN must be operative in this > semiosic process: The input from the various multiple Dynamic > Interpretants.....transformed via the general rules held by the > Representamen....resulting in the Dynamic Interpretant FORM of the whole > system...that particular cell. > > Edwina > > -- > This message is virus free, protected by Primus - Canada's > largest alternative telecommunications provider. > > http://www.primus.ca > > On Wed 12/04/17 6:33 PM , Jon Alan Schmidt jonalanschm...@gmail.com sent: > > Edwina, List: > > ET: A large issue is the definition of 'sign'. Is it the representamen > alone? Or is it the triad of the Immediate Object-Represntamen-Immediate > Interpretant? Or is it even larger - and includes the Dynamic Object? > > > I believe that our recent joint resolution to use "Sign" only for the > internal Oi-R-Ii triad could go a long way toward clearing up this > particular terminological difficulty. The external Dynamic Object is not > part of the Sign itself, it is something distinct that is in a single > triadic relation with both the Sign and the external Dynamic Interpretant. > > ET: My problem is that I can't figure out what ONE triadic Relation > means. I can understand the 'umbrella image' of the triad [1.347], which is > something like a three spoked umbrella: -<.....but one can see even from > this that there are THREE spokes or Relations in that image. > > > Lake Gary R., my understanding of that particular diagram is that its > spokes do not correspond to three distinct relations; instead, it > represents one triadic relation with three distinct subjects (correlates). > The three-pronged shape is intended to convey that none of the correlates > is in an independent relation with either of the other correlates; the triadic > relation is not reducible to multiple dyadic relations. The basic idea > is the same as when the triadic Sign relation is represented as a single > proposition, _____ stands for _____ to _____; rather than three relations, > there is one relation with three correlates, which correspond to the three > blanks. Another well-known example is _____ gives _____ to _____; giving > is not a combination of three relations, it is one triadic relation. > > ET: I can even imagine ONE Sign SET - made up of that image as outlined > by JAS, made up of the Immediate Object-Representamen-Immediate > Interpretant - and this triadic Sign would interact with the Dynamic Object > - which is itself made up of a triad of an Immediate > Object-Represntamen-Immediate Interpretant...and forms a Dynamic > Interpretant, which is itself made up of an Immediate > Object-Representamen-Immediate Interpretant. > > > This is a good example of how restricting the term "Sign" to the internal > Oi-R-Ii > triad might help clarify things. There is one such Sign at each "node" of > the external Sign relation--the Sign itself, the Dynamic Object that > determines it, and the Dynamic Interpretant that it (possibly) determines. > Again, the latter is not one triad that consists of three relations, it is > one triadic relation with three correlates. > > Is that helpful at all? > > Regards, > > Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA > Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman > www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt > > On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 3:02 PM, Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca> > wrote: > >> Yes, that's what I've been mulling over for years - where I think that >> there are three relations rather than one triadic relation. >> >> A large issue is the definition of 'sign'. Is it the representamen alone? >> Or is it the triad of the Immediate Object-Represntamen-Immediate >> Interpretant? Or is it even larger - and includes the Dynamic Object? >> >> My problem is that I can't figure out what ONE triadic Relation means. I >> can understand the 'umbrella image' of the triad [1.347], which is >> something like a three spoked umbrella: -<.....but one can see even from >> this that there are THREE spokes or Relations in that image. They may >> certainly interact and affect each other, but - this doesn't reduce them to >> ONE triadic Relation. I simply can't 'imagize' what 'one triadic Relation' >> would look like or how it would function. >> >> I can imagine ONE Sign SET [not a Relation], as an irreducible set, made >> up of three Relations. >> >> I can even imagine ONE Sign SET - made up of that image as outlined by >> JAS, made up of the Immediate Object-Representamen-Immediate Interpretant - >> and this triadic Sign would interact with the Dynamic Object - which is >> itself made up of a triad of an Immediate Object-Represntamen-Immediate >> Interpretant...and forms a Dynamic Interpretant, which is itself made up of >> an Immediate Object-Representamen-Immediate Interpretant. >> >> But- that's making me dizzy and I'll stop. >> >> Edwina >> -- >> This message is virus free, protected by Primus - Canada's >> largest alternative telecommunications provider. >> >> http://www.primus.ca >> >
----------------------------- 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 .
