JAS, Helmut, list I think were are back to quibbling over terminology purity…..
I agree with Helmut that the sign [ aka Representamen] is, as a correlate. [aka an integral member] of the triad, ..is a relation - because it functions as a relationship!! I also disagree with your assertion that it is, as the First correlate of the operative semiotic process….also the ’simplest’ which you define within the categorical definition - an error, I maintain. There is only one relationship within the Representamen; - that ‘in itself’, whereas in the Object, there are two - the Dynamic and Immediate’..and …but I note that the categories can operate ‘freely’ in them… And I think one has to be clear of the meaning of ’sign’..where in some parts of Peirce’s work, he means this to refer to only the Representamen and at other times, to the whole triad. The refusal to acknowledge this- I think causes a lot of analytic problems. > On Jun 19, 2025, at 8:55 AM, Jon Alan Schmidt <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Helmut, List: > > HR: And the sign itself is a relation, so it may be called sign-sign-relation > as well. > > This is incorrect. The sign is a correlate, not a relation. It is the first > (simplest) correlate of the genuine triadic relation of representing or (more > generally) mediating. > > HR: Note, that Peirce called them "classes of signs", not of sign triads. > > Indeed, Peirce's taxonomies are for classifying signs, not for classifying > triads, i.e., genuine triadic relations. In fact, Peirce's tenth trichotomy > for classifying signs in 1906-8 is "according to the Triadic Relation of the > Sign to the Dynamical Object and to its Normal Interpretant" (CP 8.344, EP > 2:483, 1908). > > HR: So I also do not see the real difference between sign and sign triad. > > Again, the sign is a correlate of the triad, not the triad itself. > > 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 Thu, Jun 19, 2025 at 6:13 AM Helmut Raulien <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> Jon, Edwina, List, >> >> I think, we always have to distinguish between categorial composition >> (categorial parts of something), and categorial classification (categorial >> kinds of something). There are e.g. two compositions: the sign triad >> consists of sign, object, interpretant, and the sign relation triad consists >> of the sign itself (aka the S-S-relation), the S-O-relation, and the S-I- >> relation. However, I donot see a great difference between these two >> compositions, neither between the sign itself and the sign-sign-relation. >> This is so, because the object already is a relation with the sign, as is >> the interpretant. When there is no sign to denote something for object, >> there isn´t an object, just a not interpreted (so there too isn´t an >> interpretant) something. And the sign itself is a relation, so it may be >> called sign-sign-relation as well. >> >> Further compositions are the object consisting of two, and the interpretant >> of three parts. Categorially, the `nesses of the parts of a sign triad are: >> 1 ; 2.1. ; 2.2. ; 3.1. ; 3.2. ; 3.3. >> >> Now to classification: Although the sign as correlate is a 1ness in the >> composition of the triad, it can be classified by the categories in quali-, >> sin-, and legisign. The object and the interpretant aka the >> object-sign-relation and the interpretant-sign-relation too can be >> classified in the three categories. Classes of compositions of three of one >> of each of these three blocks can be had not in 27, but only in 10 ways to >> have 10 classes of signs. Note, that Peirce called them "classes of signs", >> not of sign triads. So I also donot see the real difference between sign and >> sign triad. This difference is only due to what you are talking about: The >> correlates of the sign triad in the first place, there the sign is one of >> three correlates. Or in the second place, the correlates of the sign again: >> Sign, object, interpretant. This is funny, that A consists of A, B, and C., >> so something consists of itself and other things. But funny doesn´t mean >> impossible: In a functional (or relational) composition it is possible, it >> is a functional re-entry-thing. And it is a functional, not a spatial >> composition like a gear box, because it is all about relations, not of >> material things. So the DO too can be part of the sign relation, although it >> may be far away. In a functional (or relational) composition things are >> possible, that would not be possible in a spatial composition. >> >> Kind regards >> >> Helmut > _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ > 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.
