BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}JAS - And as I've said before, you are not The Gatekeeper to
Peircean Analysis - and I object to your intrusion into a discussion
between Gary R and myself - with you pointing out, yet again as you
have done so often, that my views are 'non-Peircean'.
I consider that I AM talking about Peirce's Semeiotic - and it is
not for you to declare that I am not. After all - I disagree with
very many of your interpretations of Peirce but I don't set myself up
as The Gatekeeper Of Peirce. I can only say to you that I, myself,
disagree with your views. I have no right to tell you that your views
are 'unPeircean' - and you have no right to say the same to me.
Edwina
On Sat 30/03/19 9:25 PM , Jon Alan Schmidt jonalanschm...@gmail.com
sent:
Edwina, List:
ET: Gary R - thanks for your reply - but- we are talking about
different things.
I agree--Gary R. is talking about Peirce's Semeiotic, and you are
talking about something else. As I said before, this is not merely a
terminological difference, it is a conceptual difference.
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USAProfessional Engineer, Amateur
Philosopher, Lutheran Laymanwww.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt [1] -
twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt [2]
On Sat, Mar 30, 2019 at 4:42 PM Edwina Taborsky wrote:
Gary R - thanks for your reply - but- we are talking about different
things.
When I refer to the triadic Sign, I am referring not to the
mediative Representamen [which can also be referred to as the 'sign]]
but to the full triad of O-R-I. The triad is irreducible.
I quite understand how unpacking this triad puts the
Representamen/sign as the first correlate, i.e., which means it
provides the basis of the semiosic process - and how the input from
the O is the second correlate....and finally..the result is the third
correlate which is the Interpretant. I agree with Peirce's outline of
'First, Second, Third'.
But this doesn't inform us of the nature of the process of
interaction between these three nodes of the triad. By the 'nature of
the process of interaction' - I mean what is the modal category of
this interaction?
You referenced, in your original post [and I can't access it now
with this computer or I'll lose this post!] - but you referenced the
modal categories of 1ns, 2ns, 3ns - which are NOT the same as the
three correlates whose numbers are ORDINAL and do not refer to the
Categories. The categories describe the nature of the interaction
between nodal sites [O-R-I] - which interactions I term 'Relations'.
This term is not confined to me.
Peirce himself used the term 'relation' eg. "In respect to their
relations to their dynamic objects, I divide signs into Icons,
Indices and Symbols" 8.335..and 8.337 where he refers to the
relations with the Interpretant. And he discusses relations
extensively in the Logic of Relatives ,,and focuses on 'the modes of
connexion' 3.364 and the triad as in "A gives B to C' which is a
basic triad of three correlates. [MS/R 418:354. The point about a
relation is 'A relation is a fact about a number of things' 3.416. -
Peirce used the term to refer to the interaction between the
sign/Representamen and the DO..and the Interpretant. The FACTS refer
to the modal categories. To simply use the term 'correlate' to refer
to the three 'spokes' of the triad says nothing about the NATURE of
their interactions.
You wrote: "So for every class there is a Sign taken in itself
(1ns), and Sign in relation to its Object (2ns), and a Sign in
relation to its Interpretant (3ns). And in my analysis, Peirce gives
the names of each sign class in involutional order: the Interpretant
(3ns) involves the Object (2ns) which involves the Sign in itself
(1ns) such that in my analysis it matters not which type of the 3
kinds of, say, relations a given sign is in itself (qualisign,
sinsign, or legisign), it remains, qua sign, a 1ns, and in the
diagram on the right, it will in each trikon of the 10 appear on the
upper left of that trikon. "
Now - with the above - you inserted the modal categories in place of
First, Second, Third ...but I don't see this. I acknowledge the three
correlates of First, Second, Third - but these are not the same as
the three modal categories of 1ns, 2nd, 3ns.
In other words - I think we have to be very careful to differentiate
the Order-of-Interaction from the Three Modal Categories. Just as I
think we have to be careful to differentiate between the
sign/Representamen and the triadic Sign of O-R-I.
Edwina
Links:
------
[1] http://www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt
[2] http://twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
[3]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'tabor...@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 .
