Edwina, List, Edwina wrote:
You can see the references [plural] to the Sign/Representamen as a relation in Robert Marty’s 76 definitions of the sign. Same with the Sign as a triadic relation. I find that long quotations are tedious to read, but I absolutely accept that I should have provided some support for my comments - I think the reference to Robert Marty’s impressive work ..should suffice. There is no need to provide long quotations in this matter for the reason you gave, namely, Robert Marty's ground-breaking work should so whether you are correct or not. But if you "absolutely accept that [you] should have provided some support for [your] comments," asking List members to sift through Marty's 76 instances of Peirce defining 'Sign' which support your 2 point (since I know Marty's 76 definitions well I can say with complete certainty that, at a minimum, not all of them do), I think that if you do "absolutely accept" that support for you comments is needed, it seems hardly a taxing burden that you simply select a few that do. This seems especially so since you must have an idea already which of those 76 definitions best support your views. Best, Gary R xx On Mon, Sep 9, 2024 at 7:37 PM Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> wrote: > Gary R, List > > You can see the references [plural] to the Sign/Representamen as a > relation in Robert Marty’s 76 definitions of the sign. Same with the Sign > as a triadic relation. > > I find that long quotations are tedious to read, but I absolutely accept > that I should have provided some support for my comments - I think the > reference to Robert Marty’s impressive work ..should suffice. > > Edwina > > On Sep 9, 2024, at 7:24 PM, Gary Richmond <[email protected]> wrote: > > Edwina, Jon, List, > > It would be helpful, Edwina, if you would add a quotation in support of > each of your points 1 and 2. > > But as you wrote (emphasis added by me). . . > > 1] Peirce *constantly* refers to the sign/representamen as a relation and > as an action of mediation. > > 2] Peirce *often* refers to the triadic relations as a Sign. > > . . . on further reflection, I think it would be immensely helpful if you > quoted Peirce more than once for each of these points. > > List: I have found using the search function (Control + F) of the online > CP very helpful and time saving in looking for particular quotations, > especially when I'm pressed for time. > > https://colorysemiotica.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/peirce-collectedpapers.pdf > > I hope, and I supposed that I have for long assumed that List members knew > of this source (and several others now online, such as volume 2 of *The > Essential Peirce*) > > Best, > > Gary R > > On Mon, Sep 9, 2024 at 7:01 PM Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> JAS, list >> >> As usual, we’ll have to continue to disagree. >> >> 1] Peirce constantly refers to the sign/representamen as a relation and >> as an action of mediation. >> >> 2] Peirce often refers to the triadic relations as a Sign. >> >> 3] As for his comment that terminology can make little difference - I >> disagree with you that this refers only to the three categories. >> >> 4] I have never said that the Real Object is connected to the sign. I >> never said that this Real Object was ‘the object of a sign. ..and would >> appreciate your not declaring that I said this. >> >> I specifically said, several times, that this Real object is OUTSIDE of >> the semiosic process. “There are real things, whose characters are >> entirely independent of our opinions about them, 5.384. When these Reals >> are moved into a semiotic interaction, they then can be understood as >> Dynamic Objects. See Peirce’s explanation of the weather - where he >> differentiates between this object..and the dynamic object. ...which >> reference I have previously provided. 8.314. >> >> Our disagreements continue. >> >> Edwina >> >> >> >> On Sep 9, 2024, at 6:25 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> List: >> >> There was no *ad hominem* in my previous post--I made no argument >> directed against a person instead of a position. Sarcasm is difficult to >> convey in written communication, and I honestly did not detect it in the >> original reference to "the ignorant and uneducated reader"; in fact, I >> still do not see it. >> >> Context is always important for interpreting and applying any quotation, >> whether of Peirce or of someone else. >> >> CSP: Even without Kant's categories, the recurrence of triads in logic >> was quite marked, and must be the croppings out of some fundamental >> conceptions. I now undertook to ascertain what the conceptions were. This >> search resulted in what I call my categories. I then [in 1867] named them >> Quality, Relation, and Representation. But I was not then aware that >> undecomposable relations may necessarily require more subjects than two; >> for this reason *Reaction *is a better term. Moreover, I did not then >> know enough about language to see that to attempt to make the word >> *representation >> *serve for an idea so much more general than any it habitually carried, >> was injudicious. The word *mediation *would be better. Quality, >> reaction, and mediation will do. But for scientific terms, 1ns, 2ns, and >> 3ns, are to be preferred as being entirely new words without any false >> associations whatever. How the conceptions are *named *makes, however, >> little difference. (CP 4.3 [not 4.4], 1898) >> >> >> Peirce does not say that how *conceptions in general* are named makes >> little difference, he says that how *his three categories* are named >> makes little difference--despite having just recounted why he ultimately >> preferred 1ns/2ns/3ns over quality/reaction/mediation, and why he came to >> prefer these names over quality/relation/representation. Moreover, only >> five years later, he apparently changes his mind and reaffirms, "When you >> strive to get the purest conceptions you can of 1ns, 2ns, and 3ns, thinking >> of quality, reaction, and mediation ..." (CP 1.530, 1903). He also spells >> out a rigorous ethics of terminology (CP 2.219-226, EP 2:263-266, 1903) in >> which he asserts that maintaining *consistent *names for *philosophical >> *conceptions >> is *extremely *important. >> >> Again, the sign *itself* is not a "triad" nor a "mediating relation," >> and Peirce never refers to it using either of these terms--not in *any *of >> the 76 definitions that Robert Marty collected ( >> https://cspeirce.com/rsources/76defs/76defs.htm), with which I am quite >> familiar. Instead, the genuine triadic relation is *representing *or >> (more generally) *mediating*--the sign (first correlate) represents its >> object (second correlate) for its interpretant (third correlate); the sign >> (first correlate) mediates between its object (second correlate) and its >> interpretant (third correlate). >> >> Again, the "real object" of a sign that has one is its *dynamical *object, >> not some third object. Any other "real object" is not an object *of the >> sign* being analyzed *at all*. >> >> I will address the questions below about the universe as a sign in the >> thread about my paper. >> >> Regards, >> >> Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA >> Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian >> www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt >> <http://www.linkedin.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt> / twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt >> >> On Sun, Sep 8, 2024 at 8:57 PM Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> JAs, list >>> >>> I don’t think it’s the time to move into ad hominem. My comment about >>> ‘ignorance and uneducted’ was sarcastic - and I’m sure you know that. And I >>> certainly don’t assume that everyone in academia knows the function of >>> ’square brackets’ [ I use them all the time because they are easier to use >>> on the keyboard]. But- even so - one should explain wHY one added a term >>> in ’squad brackets’. That’s the real issue. >>> >>> I don’t agree that using different terms from Peirce tends to ’signify >>> different concepts from Peirce’s own’. That would assume that a concept can >>> only be expressed in ONE term and that term alone.I don’t think this is a >>> valid conclusion. As Peirce himself said ‘How the conceptions are named >>> makes, however, little difference [ 4.4]. After all - Peirce’s semiosis IS >>> about information processing! What do you think is going on when a dog >>> smells a scent, and interprets it - other than ‘information processing? >>> As for ’node - I consider it a valid interpretation of the correlates; a >>> ’node’ is a site for a network connection; it is a connection site in a >>> communication network.- and in my view, that is exactly what is going on >>> within the various correlates/elations. >>> >>> Peirce himself refers to the sign as other the full triad or the >>> mediating relation. And he certainly refers to the ‘mediating relation’ as >>> just that. ..and NOT just ’the first correlate’. [ Read Robert Marty’s 76 >>> definitions of the Sign]. >>> >>> As for the Dynamic and Immediate Objects - these are both operative >>> within the semiotic process. I am referring to the Real Object [ and I >>> provided quotations from peirce] both in his comments about the weather and >>> elsewhere, as to the reality of this ’Third object’ = which is outside of >>> ones own semiotic interaction..but.. ‘real objects exist in the world.. >>> >>> I disagree with your view of the Peirean universe. I do see an >>> inconsistency with the universe as only the mediate sign/representamen [ >>> but can certainly see it as, Peirce concluded in that section, as an >>> Argument, which is triadic, and operative as multiple triadic signs. . My >>> concern is that, with your view that the Universe as a Sign, has its >>> Dynamic Object external to it - you have set up the Universe as spatially >>> finite, with boundaries. I see no mention of a bounded universe in Peirce. >>> And, that would also mean that the Dynamic Interpretant would also be >>> ‘outside of theUniverse. Again - is there any reference to this in Peirce? >>> >>> Edwina >>> >> _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ >> ARISBE: THE PEIRCE GATEWAY is now at >> https://cspeirce.com and, just as well, at >> https://www.cspeirce.com . It'll take a while to repair / update all >> the links! >> ► PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON >> PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to >> [email protected] . >> ► To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message NOT to PEIRCE-L but to >> [email protected] with UNSUBSCRIBE PEIRCE-L in the SUBJECT LINE of the >> message and nothing in the body. More at >> https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/help/user-signoff.html . >> ► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary Richmond; >> and co-managed by him and Ben Udell. >> >> >> _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ >> ARISBE: THE PEIRCE GATEWAY is now at >> https://cspeirce.com and, just as well, at >> https://www.cspeirce.com . It'll take a while to repair / update all >> the links! >> ► PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON >> PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to >> [email protected] . >> ► To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message NOT to PEIRCE-L but to >> [email protected] with UNSUBSCRIBE PEIRCE-L in the SUBJECT LINE of the >> message and nothing in the body. More at >> https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/help/user-signoff.html . >> ► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary Richmond; >> and co-managed by him and Ben Udell. > > >
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ARISBE: THE PEIRCE GATEWAY is now at https://cspeirce.com and, just as well, at https://www.cspeirce.com . It'll take a while to repair / update all the links! ► PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to [email protected] . ► To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message NOT to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] with UNSUBSCRIBE PEIRCE-L in the SUBJECT LINE of the message and nothing in the body. More at https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/help/user-signoff.html . ► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary Richmond; and co-managed by him and Ben Udell.
