John D - we are quibbling over semantics - what the term 'interaction' means to you; what 'relation' means to you. Now, you say that a 'relation results from an interaction'. That's too, the word 'pedantic' is wrong; I can't think of what word I should use...but your use is so tight and rigid - with ONE meaning only allowed...that's a bit much! I don't see how a relation can continue to exist when the interaction is over and done with. To me, in the 'images in my mind', the relation only exists within the interaction.
What do you mean by 'the parts of a semiosic sign can sometimes exist independently'? I don't see that at all. Even the dynamic object in my view, even though it exists independent of my observing it, does not exist 'per se' outside of a semiosic interaction. That rock over there exists long before me and long after me, but, in itself, it is in semiosic interaction with other realities (soil, water, air, etc)...and doesn't exist without those interactions. I don't see how the Representamen exists on its own - heck, that's moving into Platonism; and the same with the Interpretant - can't exist on its own outside of the triadic Sign. Edwina ----- Original Message ----- From: Deely, John N. To: Edwina Taborsky ; Gary Fuhrman ; [email protected] ; 'Peirce-L' Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2014 3:59 PM Subject: RE: [PEIRCE-L] Re: [biosemiotics:7750] Re: Peirce categories Ah well, Edwina, "interaction" is not relation, but what relation results from. Thus the relation continues to exist as an offspring of the interaction when the interaction is over and done with. And of course the "parts" of a "semiosic sign" can sometimes exist independently of the (one) triadic relation under which they (those "parts" or "members") were, depending upon their position under the triadic relation, sign-vehicle (the foreground term or element), significate (the 'object signified'), or interpretant. From: Edwina Taborsky [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2014 14:41 To: Gary Fuhrman; [email protected]; 'Peirce-L' Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: [biosemiotics:7750] Re: Peirce categories Ah well, Gary F, I could say that I'm baffled by your inability to understand my analysis but I don't have that nasty streak in me to say that to someone else- and imply that they are intellectually or even psychologically incompetent and as such have an 'inability to see or admit'...etc.. And of course, I disagree that my interpretation is in 'direct contradiction to the statements themselves'. I consider that you don't understand the Relation - and Peirce has written extensively of them. They are NOT composed of 'members' (where do you get that from?). A relation is an interaction between nodal sites (the Dynamic Object is one such site; the Immediate Object is another; the Representament, the three Interpretants...) but they do not exist, per se, in themselves. They are part, the perimeters, of an informational interaction; that interaction is a Relation. ...Peirce deals with these interactions/Relations in, eg, 8.335 where he writes "in respect to their relations to their dynamic objects, I divide signs into Iconcs, Indices and Symbols...and in "in regard to its relation to its signified interpretant, a sign is either a Rheme, a Dicent, or an Argument". (8.337). I always refer to the Sign (capital S) as an irreducible triad. I agree with Peirce's statement that "a sign therefore has a triadic relation to its Object and to its Interpretant" (8.343)....BUT, as he does, if you take that triad apart, you can see that the Sign is complex and made up of a dynamic information process of THREE Relations....And the Sign (capital S) does NOT have 'three members', for none of the three parts of the semiosic sign can exist, per se, on its own...while a 'member' certainly implies that it can. As Peirce says, these parts of the Sign '"neither of which is an individual thing" (8.334) I think it best, in the interests of integrity, that you write only for yourself, and not move into argumentum ad populum and speak for 'everybody', as you do in your last sentence. You are free, of course, to think that I am someone unable or unwilling to agree with you - but, that should hardly bother either of us. Edwina ----- Original Message ----- From: Gary Fuhrman To: [email protected] ; 'Peirce-L' Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2014 2:07 PM 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 To: [email protected] Cc: Peirce-L 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 .
----------------------------- 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 .
