Jean-Marc Orliaguet wrote:
Here is an article that I scanned some time ago, it was written by
Andre de Tienne:
http://www.medic.chalmers.se/~jmo/semiotic/Peirce_s_semiotic_monism.pdf
the first page is missing, but I think than anyone interested in signs
and in triadic relations should read it.
to summarize: being a 'first', 'second' or 'third' within a genuine
triadic relation (like in S, O, I) is a role, a function that the
elements have with respect to one another (i.e. being something, being
something else, being something that mediate between the other two
elements), it is not a property attached to the sign, the object or
the interpretant forever. The order of the elements (1, 2, 3) are like
ordinal labels: they can change roles, because their function changes
depending on how the relation is being analysed.
Yes I agree. May be the inverse argument makes things clearer: If the
functional role of each element is determined by some categorial
intrinsic quality of it, then the Categories (qua system) are nothing
but an ontology for objects. This is precisely what Peirces' semiotic
was struggling against, I think.
This is also the aim of my little game. If you take "Protected
Designation of Origin" (PDO) as a compound of elements each of which is
capable of an intrinsic categorial determination, we will get:
Origin = 1 because it bears the value of Firstness
Designation = 2 because it is a Reaction, an agent/patient pattern,
between something that is pointed at and its name
Protected = 3 because it mediates betwen the designation and the origin.
But a relational analysis, that is to say the analysis of the roles of
each partial element INTO the whole sign (Let PDO to stand for such a
sign), shows:
- Designation for PDO remains a Second
while:
- Protected for PDO is a First
- Origin for PDO is a Third
Conclusion: The Origin is the interpretant of the Protection system for
its object, the Designation : Some place in the South West of France is
the interpretant of the AOC for Bordeaux.
The demonstration is quite complex because it involves a combination of
rules given by CSP in CP 2.235, 2.236, 2.237 and I skip it:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
235. We must distinguish between the First, Second, and Third Correlate
of any triadic relation.
The First Correlate is that one of the three which is regarded as
of the simplest nature, being a mere possibility if any one of the three
is of that nature, and not being a law unless all three are of that nature.
236. The Third Correlate is that one of the three which is regarded as
of the most complex nature, being a law if any one of the three is a
law, and not being a mere possibility unless all three are of that nature.
237. The Second Correlate is that one of the three which is regarded as
of middling complexity, so that if any two are of the same nature, as to
being either mere possibilities, actual existences, or laws, then the
Second Correlate is of that same nature, while if the three are all of
different natures, the Second Correlate is an actual existence.
----------------------------------
The linguistic aspect of the game, and the syntactic habit in different
languages is worth noticing too. The necessary linear structure of the
linguistic chain can't mark easily such a triadic construction. So we
have virtually the ambiguity in every language: Protected (Designation
of Origin) / (Protected Designation) of Origin. However the syntactic
habit (inverse in French and in English) spares the complex calculus of
knowing which is S, O or I by constraining their position in the chain.
For example English puts the sign "Protected" at the head of the chain
while French puts it at the tail.
Bernard
as a consequence the object and the interpretant too can mediate
between the other two elements of the relation.
here are some excepts:
"... The function of a given element can vary, depending on the
perspective taken in the analysis of the triad. It can thus happen
that an element that was considered as a third from a certain
perspective A, will be considered as a second or a first from a
different perspective B or C. This is possible because the elements
are not considered in their categorial hierarchy, but in their
functional identity. I will soon draw extensively on this important
feature.In the third place, Peirce makes in his theory of the
categories the crucial"
"Peirce's favorite word to characterize thirdness is mediation. A
third is a medium between a first and a second. If each of the
correlates of a genuine triad is a third, that means that each of them
is something that mediates between the other two correlates. This much
granted, let us examine in this light the triadic sign. Peirce's
general definition of the sign is that which stands for an object to
an interpretant. What we have here are the three terms of a
purportedly genuine triad: sign, object and interpretant. Each is a
third - each can thus be viewed as a mediating term."
Please read it, Gary, Ben & co maybe it will provide you with some
valuable information.
/JM
---
Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber archive@mail-archive.com
