BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}JAS, list
You are misunderstanding what I mean by reducing the Sign to its
parts. You are ignoring that the sign/representamen and the DO and IO
AND the II and DI are all integrated components of a semiosic process.
By focusing only on the 'components' or parts almost as separate
'bits' - you have reduced the process to a mechanical action and are
ignoring the transformative interactional dynamics of the full
semiosic process - which includes ALL these 'bits' - not as parts but
as transformative agents.
I disagree that the term 'necessitant' refers only to Thirdness. I
used it to refer to a necessary component of the semiosic process,
the Representamen, - and the Representamen is most often in a mode
of Thirdness, by the way [see the 10 classes].
I also disagree that the DO and DI are 'external to the Sign' - for
this ignores that they wouldn't even function as that DO and DI
without the interactions with the basic triad.
I disagree with your outline of the triad - because I don't see how
a complex interaction can be singular. That is, the semiosis process
is complex. The Representamen can be in a mode of 3ns, and its
relation to the DO can be in a mode of 2ns, and its relation to the
II and DI can be in a mode of 1ns [this is a rhematic indexical
legisign]. If we do not acknowledge the complexity of the three
relations here; that of the R in itself; that of the R-O and that of
the R-I - then, we miss the basic dynamic nature of semiosis.
Edwina
On Mon 20/05/19 11:26 AM , Jon Alan Schmidt jonalanschm...@gmail.com
sent:
Edwina, List:
1. I am not the one "reducing the Sign to its parts," since I
consistently maintain that the Object and Interpretant are external
to the Sign, not parts of the Sign.
2. "Necessitant" is a technical term in Peirce's semeiotic, and
hence we are ethically bound to use it only as he did, as the name
for a constituent of the third Universe.
3. Again, the Dynamic Object and Dynamic Interpretant (as well as
the Final Interpretant) are external to the Sign. Each is one
correlate of a triadic relation with the Sign, but the Sign is not
itself that relation.
4. Peirce never--not once--analyzed the Sign as "an irreducible
triadic set of relations" (plural). On the contrary, he always
analyzed it as one correlate of an irreducible triadic relation
(singular) in which the other two correlates are its Object and its
Interpretant. This is not merely a terminological distinction, but
a conceptual one.
Regards,
Jon S.
On Mon, May 20, 2019 at 7:17 AM Edwina Taborsky wrote:
JAS, list
1] I think you are missing my point, which is that the triad, which
I refer to as a Sign, is a functional whole; it is irreducible in
this functionality. To intellectually reduce it to its parts totally
misses its function - which is what semiosis is all about, its
function.
Whether you refer to the interactional parts of the triad as
'correlates' or 'relations [8.335], is frankly irrelevant, since the
focus of the triad is its functionality as that set-of-interactions.
2] And diverting from my meaning of 'all representamens are
necessitants', which I used to refer to the fact that the triad MUST
include a mediating Representamen in order to function as a semiosic
process.....to instead focus on the meaning of 'necessitant' to refer
only to the categorical mode of Thirdness - ignores what I was saying
about semiosis.
3] The Dynamic Object is external to the Sign only before it becomes
attached to the semiosic process - which brings the data from that DO
'into' the mediating actions of the triad where it becomes
transformed as the Immediate Object. The same with the Dynamic
Interpretant - which is 'external' to the triad but only in a sense
that understands that its very identity is the result of the
mediating actions of semiosis. Therefore, neither the DO nor the DI
can be understood as fully separate from the semiosis function.
4] We will have to continue to disagree with regard to the ten
classes of Signs, which I clearly see as his analysis of the Sign as
an irreducible triadic set of relations.
Edwina
On Sun 19/05/19 10:47 PM , Jon Alan Schmidt jonalanschm...@gmail.com
[2] sent:
Jeff, Edwina, List:
JD: As such, some signs consist of triadic relations--even if they
are the first correlate of a further triadic relation.
I think that consist is the wrong word here, because it implies that
some Signs are nothing but triadic relations. However, I acknowledge
that some Signs clearly involve relations, and some of those relations
are triadic. For example, Symbols involve Indices and Icons that are
connected in some way, Propositions involve Semes married by
continuous predicates, and Arguments involve Propositions married by
leading principles; not to mention that the Universe as a Sign
obviously involves triadic (and other) relations. However, the point
of contention is whether any Sign is a triadic relation--i.e., a
triad--rather than always being one correlate of a triadic relation.
ET: ALL representamens could be argued as 'necessitants' ...
No, only Legisigns/Types are Necessitants; Qualisigns/Tones are
Possibles, and Sinsigns/Tokens are Existents.
ET: Therefore, the whole set, which I call the Sign, has this
'internal structure of a triadic relation connecting its parts'.
No, the Object and Interpretant are external to the Sign, not parts
of the Sign. The Sign, Object, and Interpretant are the three
correlates of the triadic relation of representing or mediating.
ET: We can see the examples in Peirce's ten classes of Signs -
where, in contradiction to the claim of JAS that Peirce never refers
to the triad as a Sign, he does just this, for he includes the full
triad of relations in his outline of these ten classes. 2.254
No, there is nothing whatsoever in that entire passage (NDTR, CP
2.233-272, EP 2:289-299; 1903) that "contradicts" my claim; on the
contrary, it explicitly confirms that a Sign is a Representamen with
a mental Interpretant--the First Correlate of a triadic relation, not
itself a triad or triadic relation.
CSP: A Representamen is the First Correlate of a triadic relation,
the Second Correlate being termed its Object, and the possible Third
Correlate being termed its Interpretant, by which triadic relation
the possible Interpretant is determined to be the First Correlate of
the same triadic relation to the same Object, and for some possible
Interpretant.A Sign is a representamen of which some interpretant is
a cognition of a mind. Signs are the only representamens that have
been much studied. (CP 2.242, EP 2:290-291)
Peirce proceeded to use "Sign," rather than "Representamen,"
throughout the entire remainder of the text. I do not see how he
could have been any clearer, and I stand by my statement that he
never--not once--used "Sign" for a triad.
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USAProfessional Engineer, Amateur
Philosopher, Lutheran Laymanwww.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt [3] -
twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt [4]
On Sun, May 19, 2019 at 7:31 AM Edwina Taborsky wrote:
ALL representamens could be argued as 'necessitants', since the
representamen doesn't 'exist' on its own but only within the triadic
semiosic set of O-R-I.
Therefore, the whole set, which I call the Sign, has this 'internal
structure of a triadic relation connecting its parts'.
We can see the examples in Peirce's ten classes of Signs - where, in
contradiction to the claim of JAS that Peirce never refers to the
triad as a Sign, he does just this, for he includes the full triad of
relations in his outline of these then classes. 2.254
The point is, the mediative semiosic process, the representamen/sign
cannot and does not function on its own. As 'Mind', it is an integral
part of an irreducible triad. The other two nodes of the triad insert
actuality into the mediative process of Mind.
Edwina
On Sun 19/05/19 1:28 AM , Jeffrey Brian Downard
jeffrey.down...@nau.edu sent:
Jon S, Edwina, List,
I accept the claim that the sign is the first correlate of a
genuinely triadic relation with respect to its object and
interpretant. Having said that, some signs have the character of
necessitants. These include legisigns, symbols, arguments. For signs
that have these three characteristics, do they have the internal
structure of a triadic relation connecting its parts? I think the
answer is "yes". As such, some signs consist of triadic
relations--even if they are the first correlate of a further triadic
relation.
Yours,
Jeff Jeffrey Downard
Associate Professor
Department of Philosophy
Northern Arizona University
(o) 928 523-8354
-------------------------
From: Jon Alan Schmidt
Sent: Saturday, May 18, 2019 5:29 PM
To: peirce-l@list.iupui.edu
Subject: Re: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Methodeutic for resolving quotation
wars (was Continuity... Edwina, List:
Yes, I refuse on ethical grounds to deviate from Peirce's own usage
of these terms. Again, either a Sign is a Representamen with a mental
Interpretant (CP 2.274, EP 2:273 and CP 2.242, EP 2:291; both 1903),
or "Sign" and "Representamen" are synonymous (SS 193; 1905). He
never--not once--used "Sign" for a triad, since a triad is always a
relation, while a Sign is always a correlate.
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Professional Engineer,
Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman
www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
On Sat, May 18, 2019 at 6:29 PM Edwina Taborsky wrote:
JAS - The Commens entry refers to definitions of the Representamen.
I am talking about the full TRIAD - not the mediative part, aka, the
Representamen, of the Triad. You repeatedly refuse to differentiate
between the two and even to acknowledge the vital role of the full
semiosic triad.
Edwina
Links:
------
[1]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'tabor...@primus.ca\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
[2]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'jonalanschm...@gmail.com\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
[3] http://www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt
[4] http://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 .
