I see a sign as something that emerges in the vague penumbra called First
or by me Reality. It is named and acquires identity rising from its primal
being. It naturally encounters a blunt index of truths which I call Ethics
(Second) and is composed of Values (not virtues) and from there it passes
John, list - Agreed, there are no 'basic relations' that exist per se. A
relation by definition exists only within an interaction. And certainly, the
triad is not 'simple composition' - which would imply that those separate
relations are each existential in themselves; the triad is a complex
Jerry, list,
I can only reiterate that I do not see that the current thread's analysis
of the triadic sign requires a consideration of Tarski's 'levels of
propositions'. This is not necessarily to suggest that at *some* level of
analysis that these might not be brought in as appropriate and,
All I can say, Jerry, is to read it more carefully. There are no
contradictions, so you must be misreading what I said. I have no idea why you
relate what I said to Tarski’s views, with which I am quite familiar. The move
that I think lies behind the connection between the triadic relations of
Jerry, John, Edwina, list,
How strange that you should write this, Jerry, as I was just about to
remark that I thought John's post helped move the conversation forward
regarding the triadic sign relation(s), and that Edwina's post further
pointed to some of the remaining differences in their
The way I understand this continuation is that mere similarity (a second) is
not enough, but similarity is not the only way of being of the same sort. I
think that this actually supports the interpretation I was giving, that it is
of the same kind (or sort), a triadic kind. I am not quite
Edwina, List:
Is it not the case, at least according to Peirce, that the
interpretant-object relation is necessarily the same as the
representamen-object relation? If so, then there is no need for a separate
trichotomy to characterize it.
"A Sign, or Representamen, is a First which stands in
Jon, List,
The interpretant is itself a sign, so at least implicitly there is a separate
triad (and on to infinity, given Peirce’s continuity of thought):
1902 | Carnegie Institution Correspondence | NEM 4:54
“A sign is something, A, which brings something, B, its interpretant sign,
determined
Sung, List:
The nine terms that you list are not really TYPES of signs; rather, each
one is a label for a single ASPECT of a given sign. Every sign is either a
qualisign, a sinsign, or a dicisign; every sign is either an icon, an
index, or a symbol; and every sign is either a rheme, a dicent, or
John, List:
Well, the passage that I quoted previously continues, "Nor can the triadic
relation in which the Third stands be merely similar to that in which the
First stands, for this would make the relation of the Third to the First a
degenerate Secondness merely. The Third must, indeed, stand
10 matches
Mail list logo
