Last time. 1] You are the one who is using the categorical terms of 1ns, 2ns, 3ns in your outline. Why are you using these terms if you declare you are not talking about the categorical modes?
2] Peirce constantly uses the terms of ‘relation’ when he is discussing the triadic nature of the Sign.. [Note: See Robert Maerty’s ' 75 definitions of the Sign'. “A sign is anything which is related to a Second thing, its Object, in resect to a Quality, in such a way as to bring a Third thing, its interpretant, into relation to this same Object. [1902; 2:92 ; my emphasis] “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…[1902: 2.274. my emphasis]. And I note - the terms of First, Second, Third, do NOT refer to categorical 1ns, 2ns, 3ns, but are ordinal references. 3] The point is - the Sign is not reducible to the Representamen alone. It is irreducible in that it exists only as a triad of relations. That is Peirce uses the term of ‘’sign’ often to refer to the Representamen and also to the triad . “A sign therefore is an object which is in relation to its object on the one hand and to an interpretant on the other…[1904. 8.832]. My emphasis “It is difficult to define a sign in general. It is something which is in such a relation to an object that it determines, or might determine, another sign of the same object…A sign has essentially two correlates, its object and its possible Interpretant sign. Of these three, Sign, Object and Interpretant, the sign as being the very thing under consideration is Monadic, the Object is Dyadic, and the Interpretant is Triadic..”1905. MS 939. “A sign may be defined as something [ not necessarily existent] which is so determined by a second something called its Object that it will tend in its turn to determined a third something called its Ingerpretangt…[1906. MS292]. “The object and the interpretant are thus merely the two correlates of the sign’ [1907 MS 318]. And I note that a create is in a RELATIONSHIP “Signs, the only things with which a human being can, without derogation, consent to have any transaction, being a sign himself, are triadic” 1909 6.344]. [I note the phrase..thag a human being is a Sign!!!!] Again, this views the sign as a triad. ..and not just to ’the first correlate’. Where does Peirce refer only to the Represnetmen as a sign? Try where he is outlining the relations between the Representamen and, eg, the Object…or..with the Inerpretant. .."the most fundametnal divison of signs is into icons, indices and symbols’. 2.275 1902….and the following outline where he uses the term of sign to mean representamen …eg..a sign may be conic…[Note; this is referring only to the relation between the Represetnamen and the Object..Not to the full triad]. He does this all through this section. And that’s it…..I’m into discussion but not debate. Edwina > On Jun 19, 2025, at 12:32 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt <[email protected]> > wrote: > > 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 > <http://www.linkedin.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt> / twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt > <http://twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt> > > On Thu, Jun 19, 2025 at 7:56 AM Edwina Taborsky <[email protected] > <mailto:[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] > <mailto:[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.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 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.
