Re: Edwina Taborsky
At: http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/13840
Edwina,
Setting terminology aside for just a moment, there is at present a general lack of understanding as
to what constitutes (1) a relation, (2) a triadic relation, (3) a triadic sign relation. Those
subjects are treated by Peirce in his logic of relative terms and the corresponding mathematics of
relations, all of which is clear enough in his early papers. Without a grasp of that background,
most of what he writes later is doomed to be mis-interpreted.
Jon
Edwina Taborsky wrote:
Gary F - thanks for this introduction.
I think it's important to clarify that, first, the interactions between the
sign and the object; and the sign and the interpretant, are relations - my use
of this term has prompted serious criticism on the Peirce list! I continue to
use the Peircean term of 'representamen' for this mediate sign...rather than
sign. I confine the term 'sign' to the full triad of
object-representamen-interpretant.
And I think it's important to acknowledge that there are nine such relations available to semiosis - not just the three of icon, index and symbol - which refer anyway, only to the relation of the representamen to the object and ignore the other two vital semiosic processes of the representamen-in-itself and the relation to the interpretant.
Edwina
--
academia: http://independent.academia.edu/JonAwbrey
my word press blog: http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/
inquiry list: http://stderr.org/pipermail/inquiry/
isw: http://intersci.ss.uci.edu/wiki/index.php/JLA
oeiswiki: http://www.oeis.org/wiki/User:Jon_Awbrey
facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/JonnyCache
-----------------------------
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 the
line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
