Gary F wrote: "*a relation can be the object of a sign*. " (S090214-1)
Beautifully put. Yes. The iconic relation between the reprentamen and its object" is called an icon. The causal relation between the representamen and its object is called an index. The conventional or habitual relation between the representamen and its object is called a symbol. Therefore, "The frequent criticism we hear on these (S090214-2) lists that 'A symbol is NOT A SIGN but one of the three representamen-object relations' is based on an incomplete understanding of the meaning of the signs." Statement (S090214-1) applies not only to the 9 TYPES of signs of Peirce but also to his 10 CLASSES of triadic signs as well. This why in the quark model of signs first proposed in 2004 [1] and described in great deal in [biosemiotics:46] dated December 16, 2012, I referred to the 9 types of signs as elementary signs and the 10 classes of triadic signs as composite signs. With all the best. Sung __________________________________________________ Sungchul Ji, Ph.D. Associate Professor of Pharmacology and Toxicology Department of Pharmacology and Toxicology Ernest Mario School of Pharmacy Rutgers University Piscataway, N.J. 08855 732-445-4701 www.conformon.net Reference: [1] Ji, S. Ji, S. (2004b). Semiotics of Life: A Unified Theory of Molecular Machines, Cells, the Mind, Peircean Signs, and the Universe Based on the Principle of Information-Energy Complementarity, in: Reports, Research Group on Mathematical Linguistics, XVII Tarragona Seminar on Formal Syntax and Semantics, Rovira i Virgili University, Tarragona, Spain, April 23-27, 2003. Available at http://www.conformon.net under Publications > Proceedings and Abstracts. Section 7.5.1. > Edwina, yes, I think we all know that you "use the Peircean term of > 'representamen' for this mediate sign...rather than sign" - and that > Peirce > himself often used the term "sign" for representamen, as I did in part of > my > post. > > Speaking of relations, one specific point about relations in semiosis is > that *a relation can be the object of a sign*. This is crucial to our > comprehension of the dicisign, as we'll see when we get into Chapter 3. > > gary f. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Jon Awbrey [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: 2-Sep-14 10:55 AM > > 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 .
