List
Continuing with my interest in exploring the Peircean framework in other areas…
Peirce writes: “A Representamen is the first correlate of a triadic relation,
the Second Correlate being termed its Object, and the possible Third Correlate
being termed its Interpretant, by which triadic relation the possible
Interpretant is determined to be the First Correlate of the same triadic
relation to the same Object and for some possible Interpretant”. 2.242 1903
And
“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 to its
Object in which it stands itself to the same Object. The triadic relation is
genuine, that is its three members are bound together by it in a way that does
not consist in any complexus of dyadic relations.” 2.274 1902.
Note: I consider that the terms of First, Second and Third are ordinal numbers.
I am aware that others in this list consider them to refer to, either the
categories of Firstness, Secondness and Thirdness, or the number of
sub-correlates in the process, ie, two Objects and three Interpretants. I
disagree and stick by my view that these refer to ordinal numbers and the
ordinal process of the semiosic action. [ See a description of such order in
8.314, and ‘the weather’. ]
My view of the above is that this triadic relation can be understood as a
function where f{x]=y,or, in Peircean terms, :
Representamen [Object]=Interpretant. Why do I compare it to a function?
Because the semiosic process is not a linear movement of data from site to
site. It’s an action carried out by the rules of the mediate function or
Representamen, upon that data, to produce that Interpretant’s meaning.
In simple terms it’s a process of relating the data from the Object [input]= to
produce an Interpretant meaning or output [oh, my, those non-Peircean
terms!!!]. The interesting correlate is of course, that function. What exactly
is it doing? Is it just moving the data from O to I as in a mechanical material
cause – where the wind blows the windmill? This would be pure Secondness. Or,
is it transforming the input data from the Object [X]= and developing a new
result, [Y], an Interpretant, which might add knowledge to that Functional base
[F] aka Representamen? See Peirce’s outline of just that in 2.274.
“The Third [ET; the Interpretant] must indeed stand in such a relation and must
be capable of determining a Third of its own; but besides that, it must have a
second triadic relation in which the Representamen or rather the relation
hereof to its Object, shall be its own [the Third’s] Object and must be capable
of determining a Third to this Relation..” 2.274
By which I understand that the Interpretant, that Third node/correlate can add
new meaning/data to either or both the Object and the Representamen.
This shows the power of the semiosic process where Mind-as-Matter [6.101] is
engaged in an action or influence [5.484] of constant self-evolution and
development [7.515].
Edwina_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
► 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] .
► <a href="mailto:[email protected]?subject=SIG%20peirce-l";>UNSUBSCRIBE FROM
PEIRCE-L</a> . But, if your subscribed email account is not your default email
account, then go to
https://list.iu.edu/sympa/signoff/peirce-l .
► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary Richmond; and
co-managed by him and Ben Udell.
