Jon, List,
This has often been a topic of discussions, and I have come to understanding it like this:
-"S is its representation of O as I" (I just wanted to add this more accurate version as supplement to my post before).
Meaning: The sign is both the Y and one tip of it (sign and Sign, representamen and sign...), there is a re-entry of the sign into the sign. This is possible, because it is a function and not just a spatial composite or ingredient. Like the "BASIC" computer command "A= A+B+C".
Best,
Helmut
21. August 2018 um 22:26 Uhr
"Jon Alan Schmidt" <jonalanschm...@gmail.com>
wrote:
"Jon Alan Schmidt" <jonalanschm...@gmail.com>
wrote:
Helmut, List:
----------------------------- 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 .No, the Sign itself is not a triadic relation; it is one Correlate (or Subject) of a triadic relation, along with the Object and the Interpretant. I think it is very important to maintain this fundamental distinction.
As I said earlier today in another thread, a Y is adequate as a logical representation of any triadic relation, but it omits the distinctive "directionality" of semiosis--from the Object through the Sign to the Interpretant.
"S mediates between O and I" is indeed quite general, but it is Peirce's own formulation once that "directionality" is incorporated--"O determines S relatively to I, and S determines I in reference to O, such that O determines I through the mediation of S" (cf. EP 2:410; 1907). Mats Bergman even characterized this as "one of Peirce's finest sign definitions."
"S represents O to I" is more specific, but still correct with I as the Interpretant, since that is the "essential ingredient" of the interpreter, just as the Object is the "essential ingredient" of the utterer (cf. EP 2:404; 1907).
However, "S represents O as I" seems incorrect to me; rather, "S represents DO as IO" is closer to my understanding.
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman
On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 2:26 PM, Helmut Raulien <h.raul...@gmx.de> wrote:
Jon, List,To your point 2.: I think, a sign is a triadic relation, so a Y is ok, but it is a very special kind of triadic relation. I think:-"S mediates between O and I" is too general, because it does not show that there is a difference between O and I.-"S represents O to I" is wrong, I think, because in that case "I" would be the interpreter, not the interpretant. I propose:-"S represents O as I".Best, Helmut
----------------------------- 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 .
