Helmut, List: I know that it comes up often, but I still strongly disagree with such an approach as clearly inconsistent with Peirce's own terminology, and therefore conducive to misunderstanding the concepts involved. We should not conflate the triadic Sign-*Relation *with the Sign *itself *as one of that relation's three Correlates (CP 2.242, EP 2:290; 1903). "Representamen" does not refer to a *part *of a Sign, it is either *synonymous *with "Sign" (and thus dispensable, SS 193; 1905) or a *generalization *of "Sign" that does not necessarily have a mental Interpretant (CP 2.274, EP 2:273; 1903).
Regards, Jon S. On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 4:16 PM, Helmut Raulien <h.raul...@gmx.de> wrote: > 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 (*s*ign and *S*ign, > 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: > Helmut, List: > > 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 > www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt > > 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 .
