Helmut, Edwina, List: HR: The sign is a correlate of three, and also it is the triad.
Again, this is false; or at best, highly misleading. For Peirce, the sign is always and only a correlate of the triad, which is the relation of representing or (more generally) mediating. ET: I do indeed say that the TERM of ’sign’ can mean both the mediate correlate [aka the representamen] AND the full triad. It all depends on the context of the discussion. In my view, it is very unfortunate that you--and, to be fair, many others--do this, contrary to Peirce's consistent original usage, because it hinders properly understanding and usefully applying his pioneering work in semeiotic. ET: I’m not very interested in ‘classification’. The categories, as Peirce is quite clear - are about the operative functionality of the data/information. And yet, you consistently refer to the categories in accordance with how Peirce specifically employed them in speculative grammar to classify individual signs, primarily his 1903 version. You evidently align "the operative functionality of the data/information" (whatever that means) with that particular taxonomy. However, for Peirce himself, the categories are first and foremost *phaneroscopic*, and broadly applicable to *every *branch of his classification of the sciences. ET: This analysis of data functionality is, to me, the basis of the Peircean categories. Again, this is your fundamental mistake. The basis of the Peircean categories is, by his own abundant and unambiguous testimony, identifying the irreducible elements of the *phaneron*--whatever is or could be present to any mind in any way. For example, "I examine the phaneron and I endeavor to sort out its elements according to the complexity of their structure. I thus reach my three categories" (CP 8.213, c. 1905). Classifying signs using trichotomic divisions according to various correlates and their relations is *one application* of them. So is your "analysis of data functionality." So is phaneroscopic analysis of the genuine triadic relation of mediating to establish that any one sign (simplest correlate) has two objects (middling complexity) and three interpretants (most complex). Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt / twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt On Fri, Jun 20, 2025 at 10:26 AM Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> wrote: > Helmut, list > > I do indeed say that the TERM of ’sign’ can mean both > the mediate correlate [ aka the representamen] AND the full triad. It all > depends on the context of the discussion. > > But I most certainly do not say that the categories are merely applicable > for ‘classification’. I’m not very interested in ‘classification’. The > categories, as Peirce is quite clear - are about the operative > functionality of the data/information. That is - is the data functioning > in a mode of ‘quality’, wholeness [ 1ns, Firstness]; or is it functioning > in a reactive , discrete mode [2ns, Secondness]..or, is it functioning in a > general mode [3ns, Thirdness]. See 1.23-24 and on and on - all throughout > his work. This analysis of data functionality is, to me, the basis of the > Peircean categories. > > Here’s also a difference, I think, between something that is complex, and > something that is complicated. The former can’t be reduced to its parts, > while the latter, as mechanical, can be reduced to its parts. > > And so, it is also informative to consider Peirce’s outline of relations > within the triad [ see 1.555 and on] . In this outline, I think the > interactions are complex because of the functioning of the categories. > > Edwina > > On Jun 19, 2025, at 4:42 PM, Helmut Raulien <[email protected]> wrote: > > Edwina, Jon, List, > > in my post before, I have sketched an outline, that is in accord with > Edwina´s claim, that the sign is the triad too, but contradicts Edwina´s > claim, that categories merely apply to classification ("modes" or > "modality"). My outline also contradicts Jon´s claim, that the sign is > merely a correlate, but not the whole triad. My view is intendes to make > the theory of complexity less complicated, like an Ockham-razor, so I hope. > Whether this complexity reduction is a justified one, or not justified, as > many other complexity reductions are, is the question. Or, I would say: > Complexity-reductions mostly are not helpful, but > complicatedness-reductions may well be. My intention is to show complexity > as less complicated, and to look for rules of it`s as simple and general as > possible. The only hard-to-accept thing about my outline is the > counter-intuitive claim of re-entry in a relational/ functional > composition. With this re-enty concept, both is true: The sign is a > correlate of three, and also it is the triad. Logically, I would say: The > proposition "A=A+B+C" does not contradict classical logic, because it does > not mean "A and not A". So I think, that if we get acquainted with the said > re-entry concept of relational or functional composition, we at last are > able to end some before-endless (seeming) quibbles, so I hope. > > Best 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.
