Edwina, List:

Peirce did not have *only one* outline.  He used qualisign/sinsign/legisign
in 1903, but by 1906 he had switched to tone/token/type, and in 1908 he
suggested potisign/actisign/famisign.  I understand that his 1903 taxonomy
has turned out to be especially *useful *in many applications, but why
should we treat it as if it were *definitive*?

Peirce did not "consider that the Sign is an irreducible triad," with the
sign itself (or representamen) as its "median node."  Where is there any
such definition among the 76 that Robert Marty has meticulously compiled
from Peirce's writings (
https://arisbe.sitehost.iu.edu/rsources/76DEFS/76defs.HTM)?

Gary R. recently brought to my attention a 2011 paper by Winfred Noeth that
addresses this very question (
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/254965612_From_Representation_to_Thirdness_and_Representamen_to_Medium_Evolution_of_Peircean_Key_Terms_and_Topics).
"In sum, Peirce *did* consider the sign to be a triadic relation, but only
in 1868. However, from 1873 onwards, *sign*, *representamen*, or
*representation* were synonymously used as the names referring to the first
correlate of the triadic relation of semiosis" (p. 455).  Why should we
adopt a definition that Peirce only expressed once or twice, and only
before he reached the age of 30, rather than the alternative that he
consistently maintained for the last 40-plus years of his life?  This is
not a case of utilizing *different* terminology that is current in another
field, but of employing Peirce's *own *terminology in a way that (in my
view) fosters confusion rather than clarity.

My approach does not "remove this mode of Firstness from the median node"
(whatever that means), it simply recognizes what Peirce himself stated--a
qualisign "cannot actually act as a sign until it is embodied" (CP 2.244,
EP 2:291, 1903).  In other words, the only signs that determine
*actual *(dynamical)
interpretants are sinsigns/tokens/actisigns, which can *possess*
qualisigns/tones/potisigns as "indefinite significant characters" (CP
4.537, 1906) that affect those interpretants.

Finally, a *quality* as 1ns in phenomenology is not "a generative force";
that seems to be a conflation with *spontaneity *as 1ns in
metaphysics, including cosmology.  In any case, "force," "grabs," and
"actualization" are all words that primarily describe 2ns, not 1ns.

Regards,

Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman
www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt

On Tue, May 5, 2020 at 9:22 PM Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca> wrote:

> JAS, list
>
> I think I'll follow Peirce's outline, which asserts that the qualisign is
> a Sign. As he wrote,
>
> "Signs are divisible by three trichotomies; first, according as the sign
> in itself is a mere quality, is an actual existent, or is a general
> law....2.243 [my emphasis]
>
> "Acccording to the first division, a Sign may be termed a Qualisign, a
> Sinsign, or a Legisign.
>
> A Qualisign is a quality which is a Sign. It cannot actually act as a sign
> until it is embodied; but the embodiment has nothing to do with its
> character as a sign" 2.244.
>
> My own view of the above is:
>
> 1] Peirce is referring to the median node in the triad - again, I consider
> that the Sign is an irreducible triad, and therefore I take the above
> outline to be analyzing the median node. In this case, it's in a mode of
> Firstness and is in itself therefore, a 'mere quality'. That is -
> something in a mode of Firstness is a 'state', a feeling, an unconscious
> sensate awareness', atemporal so to speak. And as such it cannot ACT [
> action always requires Secondness] until it is 'actualized' and moved out
> of this State of Presentness or atemporality.
>
> 2] But my view is that to remove this mode of Firstness from the median
> node, the representamen, [which is an action of transformation of input
> data - and plays a vital role in the triad-that-is-the-Sign] , would remove
> a powerful generative force from the semiosic process.
>
> Firstness is a generative force, and I think that the semiosic process
> requires it - even, 'grabs' it and moves it into an actualization.
>
> Edwina
>
-----------------------------
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 .




Reply via email to