Hugo,List I continue to disagree with JAS - for I understand Peirce’s outline of the correlates in the two quotations to refer, not to their categorical mode, but to their order in semiosic processing.
As such, I acknowledge Peirce where he says that the first correlate [the Representamen] is the simplestnature….Yes - for there is only ONE Representamen. Then, the second correlate, the Object, is of ‘middling complexity’ - there are TWO types of Object in the semiosic process: theDynamic and the Immediate. And the Interpretant is the most complex form ; there are THREE types of Interpretants! But again, these have absolutely nothing to do with modal categories. Ii do agree that the Interpretant does not represent the Sign/Representamen. …and agree that the Dynamical Object of the Interpretant is not the same as the Dynamical Object of the Representamen, because it now includes information from the Representamen ..eg when I hear a sound [ DO] it is transformed by my knowledge base [repesentamen] into my Interpretant [ the phone ringing]. I think the ringing-is-a-phone has more informational content than simple ringing. Edwina > On Jun 17, 2025, at 6:04 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Hugo, List: > > CSP: A Sign, or Representamen, is a First which stands in such a genuine > triadic relation to a Second, called its Object, as to be capable of > determining a Third, called its Interpretant, to assume the same triadic > relation to its Object in which it stands itself to the same Object. (CP > 2.274, EP 2:272-3, 1903) > > ET: However, it should be emphasized that these terms of First, Second and > Third, do not refer to the modal categories but to the order of semiosic > processing, where, as Peirce points out ... > > CSP: A Representamen is the First Correlate of a triadic relation, the Second > Correlate being termed its Object, and the possible Third Correlate being > termed its Interpretant, by which triadic relation the possible Interpretant > is determined to be the First Correlate of the same triadic relation to the > same Object, and for some possible Interpretant. (CP 2.242, EP 2:290, 1903) > > This is one of my many longstanding disagreements with Edwina about Peirce's > "standard model." The two quotations from 1903 are directly parallel and > obviously connected with his three categories, which are not merely "modes" > in which signs, objects, and interpretants "operate"--more fundamentally, > they are phaneroscopic. As he explains earlier in the second passage, "The > First Correlate is that one of the three which is regarded as of the simplest > nature ... The Third Correlate is that one of the three which is regarded as > of the most complex nature ... The Second Correlate is that one of the three > which is regarded as of middling complexity" (CP 2.235-7, EP 2:290). Peirce > realized within the next year or two that this results in any one sign > (simplest) having two objects (middling complexity) and three interpretants > (most complex), each of which--along with their external relations--can > belong to any of the three universes (possible, existent, necessitant) that > correspond to his categories. This leads to his ten-trichotomy, 66-class sign > taxonomy of 1906-8. > > On the other hand, I agree with Edwina that the interpretant does not > represent the sign, it represents the same object as the sign. That is > precisely what both 1903 quotations conclude by saying, although I would add > two qualifications--the dynamical object of the interpretant is not quite the > same as the dynamical object of the sign, because it now includes the sign > itself; and the real process of semiosis is continuous, such that we always > prescind discrete signs with their discrete objects and interpretants from it > as artifacts of analysis. > > 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 > <http://twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt> > On Tue, Jun 17, 2025 at 1:49 PM Edwina Taborsky <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> Hugo, list >> >> Just a few points. >> >> 1] I agree with your differentiation between Barbieri’s mechanical code >> hypothesis and the Peircean analytic framework within biosemiotics but I >> think that Barbier’s domination in the biosemiotic field was due more to his >> forceful personality than the validity of his theories in that field!! I >> recall once, when we were arguing with him in a restaurant over his theories >> - the waiter coming over to tell him that unless he could refrain from >> shouting - we’d have to leave. Obviously- I don’t agree with his mechanical >> view of biosemiosis. >> >> 2] I agree with you that the triadic semiosic can’t be reduced to >> ‘representation’ [ which is more Saussurian semiology] than Peircean >> semiosis. Because for Peirce, the triad is a transformative process and >> above all, it is irreducible. You can’t separate the three relations which >> is why I also explain them as a function. But there is another vital >> alspect of semiosis - and that is the categories. That is- the correlates >> operate as modal categories…and you can see their cognitive result in >> Peire’s outline of the Ten Signs [ see various examples in 2.240 and on. >> You provided the quotation, >> >> 3] A Sign, or Representamen, is a First which stands in such a genuine >> triadic relation to a Second, called its Object, as to be capable of >> determining a Third, called its Interpretant, to assume the same triadic >> relation to its Object in which it stands itself to the same Object. (CP >> 2.274, 1902). >> >> However,it should be emphasized that these terms of First, Second and >> Third,do not refer to th modal categories but to the order of semiosic >> processing, where, as Peirce points out in 2.242, “A Representamen is the >> First Correlate of a triadic relation, the Second Correlate being termed its >> object, and the possible Third correlate being termed its Interpretant’. [ >> Note; this semiotic processing of input data from the object via the >> Reprsentamen/mediation to the resultant output meaning/Intepretant’ is NOT >> the same as the movement of the hard data from the Dynamic Object through >> the Representamen through the Interpretant]. >> >> BUT - along with this semiotic triadic process, is the fact that these >> correlates all operate within the modal categories - and, as we see outlined >> in the TenClasses of Signs,[2.264] each correlate can operate in a different >> modal category. BUT - it is vital to note that these are restricted or >> constrained by the very nature of the modal category. That is, a Reprentamen >> operating in a mode of Firstness,cannot logically or informationally, >> produce an Interpretant in a mode of Thirdness! It simply doesn’t have, in >> itself, the informational content to do so. And that is why, in the ten >> classes,there is only ONE triad with a Representamen in a mode of Firstness >> - and it only produces Interpretants in a mode of Firstness. There are >> three classes with the Representamen in the mode of Secondnesss - and they >> produce Interpretants in either Firstness or Secondness. B ut of course, >> are incapable of produce an Interpretant in a mode of Thirdness. There is >> only ONE class capable of this - the Argument symbolic Legisign. >> >> 4] I agree with you about the external and internal objects and >> interpretants..see his outline of the weather in 8.312]. >> >> 5] And I like your terms of ’source mediator and outcome. As I said - I have >> used the terms of ‘input/mediation/output or function where f[X]=y for over >> two decades. But I dont’ consider these new analyses of the Peircean >> framework - just different terms for his analysis. >> >> 6] You wrote: "Therefore we must distinguish between the sign as it is >> represented by the interpretant, the immediate sign, and the really >> efficient sign in the mediation process, the dynamical sign.” >> >> I don’t see that the Representamen is ‘represented’ by the Interpretant.I >> consider that the OBJECT, via the transformative process of the mediative >> actions off teh Representamen,…produces the Interpretant..which ‘represents’ >> the Object. >> >> 7] I have not had time read through your second part but from what I can >> see,you are attempting to examine how, for example, habits [which are >> located in the Representamen] emerge, develop and change. Habits, which >> function in the categorical mode of Thridness, can develop as a result of >> chance. [Firstness], repetition [Secondness] or..thought/Mind [ Thirdness]. >> All of this is found 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.iu.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.iu.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.
