Edwina, List: ET: 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?
Asking that question highlights the fundamental problem--you seem to think that the terms 1ns/2ns/3ns *always and only *refer to the "categorical modes" used to classify signs in speculative grammar, when in fact they are Peirce's preferred names for his three *universal categories* that have much broader applications throughout every branch of his classification of the sciences. That is why you do not understand Gary Richmond's vectors, and why you apparently cannot see how phaneroscopic analysis establishes any one sign having two objects and three interpretants, despite our multiple thorough explanations. ET: Peirce constantly uses the terms of ‘relation’ when he is discussing the triadic nature of the Sign. As I conclusively demonstrated in my September post, and again below by bolding the key words, Peirce consistently states that the sign IS IN or STANDS IN a genuine triadic relation with the object and interpretant, not that the sign IS ITSELF that relation. ET: That is Peirce uses the term of ‘’sign’ often to refer to the Representamen and also to the triad. Again, Peirce does not use the term "sign" to refer to the triad, i.e., the genuine triadic relation; instead, he uses it to refer to the first correlate of that relation. Although he initially coined "representamen" as a generalization of "sign"--restricting the latter to "a Representamen with a mental Interpretant" (CP 2.274, EP 2:273, 1903), i.e., "a Representamen of which some Interpretant is a cognition of a mind" (CP 2.242, EP 2:291, 1903)--he ultimately decided that they were synonymous; "there was no need of this horrid long word" [representamen] because "sign" is "a wonderful case of an almost popular use of a very broad word in almost the exact sense of the scientific definition" (SS 193, 1905). CSP: Signs, the only things with which a human being can, without derogation, consent to have any transaction, being a sign himself, are triadic [6.344] ET: Again, this views the sign as a triad. ..and not just to ’the first correlate’. In this case, Peirce does not state that the sign IS A TRIAD, he states that signs ARE TRIADIC. What does he mean by this? We need not speculate, because he goes on to tell us immediately--"since a sign denotes a subject, and signifies a form of fact, which latter it brings into connexion with the former" (CP 6.344, 1907). A sign is *that which* denotes its object, signifies its interpretant, and brings them into connection with each other. This is just another way of saying that a sign is the first correlate of the genuine triadic relation of *representing *or (more generally) *mediating*. 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 12:20 PM Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 correlate *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 >
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 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.
