John C, List, Would you explain this remark: "The only time [the] sign (I am assuming you mean representamen) might determine the objects is when it is purely iconic. I take it that this is a trivial case."?
Even in the case of the three classes of iconic signs in the classification into 10 classes it would seem to me that the Object determines the Representamen for the Interpretant. I don't see any exceptions. Best, Gary R [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* On Sun, Apr 16, 2017 at 4:37 PM, John Collier <colli...@ukzn.ac.za> wrote: > This is my understanding too, Gary F., though I have found the passage you > quoted from Peirce especially hard to parse formally. > > > > The only time thee sign (I am assuming you mean representamen) might > determine the objects is when it is purely iconic. I take it that this is a > trivial case. > > > > Cheers, > > John > > > > *From:* g...@gnusystems.ca [mailto:g...@gnusystems.ca] > *Sent:* Sunday, 16 April 2017 2:07 PM > *To:* 'Peirce-L' <peirce-l@list.iupui.edu> > *Subject:* RE: [PEIRCE-L] Dyadic relations within the triadic > > > > Jon, briefly, I don’t see that “the Sign determines the Sign-Object > relation,” and I don’t see where Peirce says that it does. What Peirce > usually says in his definitions is that the Object determines the Sign to > determine the Interpretant. (This does get more complicated when he > introduces the dichotomy between Immediate and Dynamic Objects, but this is > not mentioned in NDTR.) > > > > There are many variations, such as the beginning of “Speculative Grammar” > (EP2:272), where he says that “A *Sign*, or *Representamen*, is a First > which stands in such a genuine triadic relation to a Second, called its > *Object,* as to be capable of determining a Third, called its > *Interpretant,* to assume the same triadic relation to its Object in > which it stands itself to the same Object.” But I have yet to see anyplace > where Peirce says or implies that the Sign *determines the Sign-Object > relation*. If you can cite such a place, please do so. And that goes > double for your claim that “the Sign-Object relation determines how the > Interpretant represents the Sign.” In my view, that is determined by > whether the Sign is an Argument, a Dicisign or a Rheme. But again, I’m > happy to be corrected if you can show that I’m wrong by citing a Peirce > text. > > > > Gary f. > > > > *From:* Jon Alan Schmidt [mailto:jonalanschm...@gmail.com > <jonalanschm...@gmail.com>] > *Sent:* 16-Apr-17 15:34 > *To:* Gary Fuhrman <g...@gnusystems.ca> > *Cc:* Peirce-L <peirce-l@list.iupui.edu> > *Subject:* Re: [PEIRCE-L] Dyadic relations within the triadic > > > > Gary F., List: > > > > As I see it, #11 is the main sticking point ... > > > > GF: My contrary claim is that the order in which trichotomies are listed > has nothing to do with the order of determination that applies to > correlates, and if Peirce had chosen to list them in the order I did, this > would make absolutely no difference to the tenfold classification of signs. > > > > ... because to me, it contradicts #7. > > > > GF: However the overlapping is constrained by the order of determination, > so that (for instance) the same sign cannot be both a sinsign and an > argument. > > > > The order of determination does not apply *only *to correlates, it > applies to *all *of the divisions for classifying Signs. In particular, > the Sign determines the Sign-Object relation, which determines how the > Interpretant represents the Sign. As I emphasized when I quoted it, the > order of the three trichotomies in CP 2.243 is *not *random or > inconsequential. For example, if it were switched to your order, an > Argument could be a Qualisign, and a Legisign could not be an Icon; but > these conclusions are inconsistent with the ten classes that Peirce went on > to identify. > > > > As for #12 ... > > > > GF: As I said above, there is no “Object trichotomy” or “Interpretant > trichotomy” in NDTR. > > > > This is true--but if there had been, the order of determination would have > been Interpretant, Object, Sign in accordance with CP 2.235-238. By 1908, > the order of determination was instead (two) Objects, Sign, (three) > Interpretants. > > > > Regards, > > > Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA > > Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman > > www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - 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 > . > > > > > >
----------------------------- 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 .
