BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}JAS -
I think it's irrelevant whether we call the
Qualisign/Sinsign/Legisign ...tone/token/type...and so on. I'm not
sure why you consider it important.
As for your rejection of my using modern terminology to refer to the
Peircean framework - there is nothing I can do about your problem with
modern terms. Most certainly, Peirce did consider the triad as
irreducible - and I'm not going to fling quotations at you. And the
representamen/sign is understood to bring the object and interpretant
into relation with each other - a clear analogy with a 'median node'.
I don't think that Peirce used the term 'representamen' only once or
twice but much more often - but that's not the point. My usage of it
is to differentiate its function as a mediative action from that of
the WHOLE triad of O-R-I - for I consider that this whole triad is
The Sign. I feel that some people consider the mediative relation as
the Sign - rather than the full triad.
The full quote is: "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.
That is - the embodiment doesn't define its character as a qualisign,
ie, as a triad in a mode of Firstness. As a triad - in my view - it is
a semiosic sign. We'll just have to disagree.
I happen to consider that Firstness is a generative force. And it
most certainly is not a conflation or with or synonym of
'spontaneity'. Again - we'll have to continue to disagree. I
disagree that 'force' is confined to 2ns...I recall you also saying
that the word 'dynamic' is also confined to 2ns. We'll just have to
yet again - disagree.
Edwina
On Wed 06/05/20 8:59 PM , Jon Alan Schmidt jonalanschm...@gmail.com
sent:
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 [1])?
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
[2]). "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, USAProfessional Engineer, Amateur
Philosopher, Lutheran Laymanwww.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt [3] -
twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt [4]
On Tue, May 5, 2020 at 9:22 PM Edwina Taborsky 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
Links:
------
[1] https://arisbe.sitehost.iu.edu/rsources/76DEFS/76defs.HTM
[2]
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/254965612_From_Representation_to_Thirdness_and_Representamen_to_Medium_Evolution_of_Peircean_Key_Terms_and_Topics
[3] http://www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt
[4] http://twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
[5]
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 .
