Hugo, list With regard to your quotation
> 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). I think that such an outline where you state that “the interpretant represents the sign to be a representation of the object’….I don’t think this is a valid outline of the semiotic process. What you are describing is a mechanical linear action of each correlate or ’node’, so to speak, simply ‘re-presenting’ the data of the previous node. This isn’t semiosis which is a triadic process, not a three-step linear dance ..and one which can transform the input data into meaning [ not re-presentation]. As for the quotation of Peirce that you provide:..and I acknowledge it is very confusing.. ‘every comparison requires besides the related thing, the ground and the correlate, also a mediating representation which represents the relate to be a representation of the same correlate which this mediating representation itself represents. Such a mediating representation may be termed an interpretant, because if fulfills the office of an interpreter”. [EP1:5]. Peirce, on p 4, defines the ground as a general attribute. I understand this early version of the semiosic triad as correlate/ground/ relate or interpretant. [see Point 8, page 5]. And “every reference to a correlate, then, conjoins to the substance the conception of a reference to an interpretant” p 5]. My interpretation of these sections from Peirce therefore differs from yours. Edwina > On Jun 18, 2025, at 9:57 AM, Hugo F. Alrøe <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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] <mailto:[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] >>> <mailto:[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 <http://gmail.com/> >>> Web: hugo.alroe.dk <https://hugo.alroe.dk/>_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ >>> ARISBE: THE PEIRCE GATEWAY is now at >>> https://cspeirce.com <https://cspeirce.com/> and, just as well, at >>> https://www.cspeirce.com <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] >>> <mailto:[email protected]> . >>> ► To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message NOT to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] >>> <mailto:[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 <http://gmail.com/> > Web: hugo.alroe.dk <http://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.
