Edwina, Jon, List, Thank you for your comments on the paper.
On your point 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." Interesting that you have used quite similar terms for the mediation aspect of sign action. In Section 3 of "The six types of sign action" I trace the development in Peirce's thoughts on representation and mediation in his theory of signs, and I argue that mediation can be considered separately from representation in sign action (p. 13). But I did not find much written on how to designate the correlates of the triadic mediation process. Quoting your point 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." Further, Jon in a reply to this states: "I agree with Edwina that the interpretant does not represent the sign, it represents the same object as the sign." However, in his early conception of the interpretant, Peirce states clearly that the interpretant represents the sign to be a representation of the object that the interpretant itself represents (quote from The six types of sign action, p. 5): "… a mediating representation which represents the relate [later: the sign] to be a representation of the same correlate [the object] which this mediating representation itself represents. Such a mediating representation may be termed an interpretant …" (EP 1: 5, 1867, my insertions in square brackets). Best, Hugo Den tirs. 17. jun. 2025 kl. 20.40 skrev Edwina Taborsky < [email protected]>: > 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 > > > On Jun 15, 2025, at 5:15 AM, Hugo F. Alrøe <[email protected]> wrote: > > List, Cécile > > The paper on the six types of sign action that I mentioned on the list a > little while ago has now been published online in Semiotica. The paper is > open access, and I have included a link and the abstract below. > > As I write in the paper, I am thankful for inspiration from Peirce-L over > the years and in particular for the spiral-shaped drawing of the triadic > sign in semiosis provided by Cécile Cosculluela in the thread “Graphical > Representations of the Sign by Peirce,” January 2024, which inspired my > depiction of a "mediating representation" in the paper. > > All the best, > Hugo > > Alrøe, Hugo F. (2025) The six types of sign action. Semiotica. > https://doi.org/10.1515/sem-2024-0112 > > Abstract > The Peircean doctrine of signs is incomplete. This paper rethinks the > standard model of sign action to provide a common framework for analyzing > all the different kinds of semiotic processes, including the workings of > thinking creatures, sentient beings, single cell organisms, social systems, > and sciences. Through a detailed theoretical analysis, the paper shows how > we can separate *mediation *(featuring the steps: source, mediator, and > outcome) from *representation* (featuring the conventional sign > correlates: object, sign, and interpretant) in Peircean semiotics and > combine the two to establish a general model of sign action. This leads to > the fundamental and, in a Peircean context, somewhat controversial ideas > that there are not two but three dynamical sign correlates and, notably, > that there is not one direction of mediation in the sign triad, but six > directions, which constitute six fundamental types of sign action: > *perceiving*, *acting*, *interpreting*, *expressing*, *sensing*, and > *reacting*. The sixfold model of sign action is a step toward a general > theory of semiosis, it promises to reconcile the split in biosemiotics, and > it provides a coherent semiotic foundation for a general theory of > observation in science. Chiefly, it offers a workable framework for > semiotics. > > -- > Hugo F. Alrøe, PhD > Email: hugo.f.alroe \at/ gmail.com > Web: hugo.alroe.dk > _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ > 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. > > > -- Hugo F. Alrøe, PhD Email: hugo.f.alroe \at/ gmail.com Web: hugo.alroe.dk
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 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.
