Edwina, List: ET: You have a view of the categories which seems, to me, ungrounded in his writings.
You have a view of the categories which seems, to me, extremely narrow. You apparently limit them to one specific application--trichotomies for classifying signs. Peirce employs them much more broadly--they permeate his entire system of thought. ET: Would you provide me with his outline where he writes that a triad with a DO correlate in 2ns produces a Representamen in 1ns and Interpretants operative in 3ns? Of course not, because I am not making any such claim--again, I am not talking about the "categorical modes" in which the correlates and their relations are "operative." Why do you keep insisting otherwise? As I have stated twice before, I agree with you that a qualisign (sign itself is possible/1ns) cannot be an argument (sign's relation to final interpretant is necessitant/3ns). That has absolutely nothing to do with phaneroscopic analysis of the genuine triadic relation of mediating, which aligns the sign with 1ns (genuine only), the object with 2ns (genuine and degenerate), and the interpretant with 3ns (genuine, degenerate, and doubly degenerate). ET: I think we are back to quibbling over terminology purity. It is not just about terminology, it is about the underlying concepts. ET: There is only one relationship within the Representamen; - that ‘in itself’, whereas in the Object, there are two - the Dynamic and Immediate’. This exhibits additional confusion--the dynamic object and immediate object are not two *relations*, they are two *correlates*. Likewise, the final interpretant, dynamical interpretant, and immediate interpretant are not three *relations*, they are three *correlates*. ET: 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. Would you provide me with his texts where he *explicitly *uses the term "sign" to refer to "the whole triad" instead of its first correlate? Of course not, because there are no such texts, as we conclusively established several months ago ( https://list.iu.edu/sympa/arc/peirce-l/2024-09/msg00048.html). The refusal to acknowledge this, I think, causes a lot of analytic problems. Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt / twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt On Thu, Jun 19, 2025 at 7:56 AM Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> wrote: > JAS,list > > I don’t think that you can logically conclude that because I say that I > don’t understand Gary R’s vector analysis, that I also don’t understand > ‘any application of Peirce’s phaneroscopic categories. Understanding the > one does not logically include/exclude the other. > > Furthermore - I don’t define the Pericean categories as merely for 1903 > ’sign classification’ - but- my outlines of the categories show that they > are the basis for his analysis of semiosic and phaneroscopic functionality. > > And I don’t get your point > > The point here is that once phaneroscopic analysis of the genuine triadic > relation of mediating aligns the sign with 1ns, the object with 2ns, and > the interpretant with 3ns, the directionality of the real and continuous > process of semiosis--always from the object through the sign toward the > interpretant--conforms to his vector of determination (2ns→1ns→3ns). > > How can you do such a thing? Your reliance on ’phaneroscopic analysis’ as > the utltimate authority doesn’t provide enough information for such an > assertion - which nullifies the functionality of the categories. You have a > view of the categories which seems, to me, ungrounded in his writings. > Would you provide me with his outline where he writes that a triad with a > DO correlate in 2ns produces a Representamen in 1ns and Interpretants > operative in 3ns? > > I am aware of your previous temporal analysis. You say that it is > ‘different but equally valid’ - and I continue to disagree with such a > conclusion. > > Edwina > On Thu, Jun 19, 2025 at 8:07 AM Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> wrote: > 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. >
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 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.
