Oops. Obviously my last sentence should read "nobody agrees that your nomenclature and analysis of triadic relations is the same as Peirce's". Sorry.
While I'm here I might as well quote from Peirce's "Nomenclature and Divisions of Triadic Relations" to reinforce the point: 242. 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. A Sign is a representamen of which some interpretant is a cognition of a mind. Signs are the only representamens that have been much studied. 243. Signs are divisible by three trichotomies: first, according as the sign in itself is a mere quality, is an actual existent, or is a general law; secondly, according as the relation of the sign to its object consists in the sign's having some character in itself, or in some existential relation to that object, or in its relation to an interpretant; thirdly, according as its Interpretant represents it as a sign of possibility or as a sign of fact or a sign of reason. (CP 2.242-3, EP2:290-91) gary f. From: Gary Fuhrman [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 16-Dec-14 2:08 PM To: '[email protected]'; 'Peirce-L' Subject: RE: [PEIRCE-L] Re: [biosemiotics:7750] Re: Peirce categories Edwina, as always, I'm baffled by your inability to see (or admit) that your "interpretation" of this and other Peirce statements is in direct contradiction to the statements themselves. You say that the "Sign (capital S) is a complex and irreducible triad of three Relations." Peirce says that the Interpretant must "assume the same triadic relation to its Object" in which the "Sign, or Representamen" stands to the same Object. One triadic relation. You on the other hand say that "Repre-Obj" is one relation and "Rep-Interpretant" is another. (You also call "Rep in itself" a "relation", to make three, but that's a very odd sort of "relation"). The reason that "people keep saying you support dyads" is that your three "relations" have only two "members" each, to use Peirce's term. A triadic relation has three members, not two; and a complexus of three dyadic (two-member) relations is not, according to Peirce, "a triadic relation." If you can't see that, you can't see it, but I'm sure everybody else can, and that's why nobody agrees that your nomenclature and analysis of triadic relations is radically different from Peirce's. gary f. From: Edwina Taborsky [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 16-Dec-14 1:15 PM To: [email protected]; Peirce-L Subject: [PEIRCE-L] Re: [biosemiotics:7750] Re: Peirce categories Gary R - I think we've been through this discussion before as well. As I said, I consider that the triadic Sign (capital S) is a complex and irreducible triad of three Relations. I've listed them: Repre-Obj; Rep in itself; Rep-Interpretant. Notice the pivotal role of the Representamen! It's the foundation of all three Relations - but- neither the Object nor the Interpretant are reducible to the Reprsentamen. The reason for the three Relations is that each one can be in a different categorical mode. (I'm repeating myself) The quote that you provide, Gary, is interpreted differently by you and me. You understand the term 'First' to mean in the categorical mode of Firstness, whereas I understand it to mean that the existential unit (let's say, a cell) which is already a triadic Sign, picks up incoming stimuli via its Representamen-Object Relation. That's what FIRST happens. Then, SECOND, it mediates this input data of the Object within the habits of the Representamen...and passes that for further 'fine-tuning' via the various Interpretants (Third step). Obviously, none of this triadic process operates within dyads. Where do you come up with any sense that I support dyadic relations? I've consistently rejected such - and it's weird, but people keep saying that I support dyads! Weird. And I fully agree with the last sentence - Peirce says it perfectly - "That is the reason the Interpretant, or Third, cannot stand in a mere dyadic relation to the Object, but must stand in such a relation to it as the Representamen itself does. 2.274" After all - a dyadic relation of the Interpretant to the Object - is Saussurian and mechanical and utterly ignores the vital mediative and evolutionary role of the Representamen, or the 'habits of formation'. I note that you, in this post, refer to 'three relation' (singular) while in other posts, you have referred to relationS (plural). Ah well. Edwina ----- Original Message ----- From: Gary Richmond <mailto:[email protected]> To: [email protected] Cc: Peirce-L <mailto:[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2014 12:38 PM Subject: [biosemiotics:7750] Re: Peirce categories Edwina, John, lists, I have tended to strongly agree with John in this matter, principally because of this and similar passages. 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. That is the reason the Interpretant, or Third, cannot stand in a mere dyadic relation to the Object, but must stand in such a relation to it as the Representamen itself does. 2.274 As I see it, the 'three relation' (to the sign itself, its object, its interpretent) are for the purposes of analysis only because "the triadic relation is genuine" such that "its three members are bound together by it in a way that does not consist of any complexus of dyadic relations." So my question is, Edwina, how do you interpretent 2.274? Best, Gary R
----------------------------- 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 .
