Thanks for your comments, Ben. See mine below, but I think the post
is getting messy and incomprehensible with the various post/responses
all mixed up. You are probably the only one who will read it and I
hope you can figure it out. I'll try colour-coding my current responses.
1) EDWINA: No- 'represents' is, to me, conceptually similar. To
me, semiosis is a transformative process; it doesn't just replace
'x' with 'y'. It actually takes data from X (let's say, a food
source for a cell) and transforms it within the Sign (the cell) ,
to a new 'bit' of information (a component of that cell).
BEN: So semiosis samples the object data and represents it with a
sign. The semiosis arranges for itself to be determined by, and
thereby represent, the object. But the _/sign/ _ doesn't sample
the object, instead it is a representative sample or
representative product of the sample from the object.
EDWINA : No, no, I don't see this 'represents the object data
with a sign'. That's a linguistic perspective, where a cognitive
system, which happens to be linguistic, re-presents what the
agent observes (eg, Object: a cat sitting out there) and
re-presents that image with the linguistic sign of 'cat'. That,
to me, is superficial and hardly acknowledges the strength of
Peircean semiosis.
What I'm talking about is a biochemical process, where, let's
say, a cell (which is a cognitive system) ingests some external
data (water, nutrients) (Object) and, semiosically transforms
that input data, via its mediative habits-of-organization (the
Representamen)...into ..parts of that cell (Interpretant).
2) EDWINA: I agree; the ten classes of signs are defined by
their relations. I didn't say that they 'are the relations
defined'. A dicisign is a triad and I understand that it is
defined by the whole Sign's relation to BOTH the object and the
interpretant - which is why it is understood as 'conveying
information' (2.309--).
BEN: Yet you continually call the representamen a relation. Back
on 8/26/2014 you called the difference between correlation and
correlative "nitpicking".
EDWINA: Yes, it is a Relation-in-Itself. There are three
Relations: the one between the Representamen-and-the-Object; the
one between the Representamen-and-the-Interpretant; and the
Representamen-in-Itself. The Representamen, is 'in itself',
because is has a vital function; it mediates between the Object
and the Interpretant Relations. And, the Representamen is often
(in six) in the mode of Thirdness, which is a mode of
generalization, against which particular input data is referenced
and 'interpreted'.
------------------------------ From now on, the
post/replies/comments...are getting messy.
[8/26/2014]
>>>> BEN: Again, Peirce calls sign, object, and interpretant
the semiotic correlates, not the semiotic correlations. He
typically distinguishes between representation as the
relation or operation of representing, on one hand, and sign,
or representamen, as that which represents, on the other
hand. He never refers to a sign or representamen as a
representation except when he is using the word
'representation' in one of its popular senses, to mean
_/something that represents/ _, as when we say that a
painting is a representation of something, or that somebody
made a representation in court.
>>> EDWINA: Agreed - but I think that 'correlates' and
'correlations' is nit-picking. I am aware when he uses the
terms 'representamen' and 'representation' and again, I don't
think that changes my outline.
[End quote]
3) BEN: If a dicisign is a triad (consisting of
representamen-object-interpretant) then what class of
representamen is in its triad? Another dicisign?
A dicent representamen?
EDWINA: The representamen in the three dicisigns is not in a
class but in a mode; in the Dicent Sinsign, the representamen is
in a mode of Secondness, and in the Dicent Indexical Legisign and
the Dicent Symbolic Legisign, the representamen is in a mode of
Thirdness.
And I have the same problem with some of your comments below,
regarding the Representamen- where you talk about it as if it
were a 'class', while I see it as within a 'mode'.
---------------------------------------------
4) >EDWINA: I don't think that the term 'relation' can be
reduced to a 'state' (which is what 'quality' is); the term
'relation', to me, means an interaction. I don't think that
'blue' is in itself a relation.
BEN: The point is not confusing the abstraction (quality or
relation) with the concrete source. A quality is static if only
color, odor, etc. are considered. But there are also rhythm,
melody, harmony, qualities of motion and form, etc. Peirce
considered 'tuone', a cross between 'tune' and 'tone', as a term
for qualisign.
3) >>>> BEN: Your generally calling relatives or correlates
themselves "relations", on the other hand, makes it difficult
for me to read you; I mean I sometimes have trouble following
what you say.
>>> EDWINA: I'm using Peirce's terms.
>> BEN: No, and you've never provided an example of his so
expressing himself.
> EDWINA: I've given numerous examples of Peirce using the
terms of 'relation' to refer to the interactions/connections
within the semiosic triad; eg, to repeat yet again, 8.335,
"in respect to their relations to their dynamic objects'....
BEN: That's not what I denied. I said "your generally calling
relatives or correlates themselves 'relations', on the other
hand, makes it difficult for me to read you...."
And you just said back in (2a): " the ten classes of signs are
defined by their relations. I didn't say that they 'are the
relations defined'."
Now here's the quote that you cite:
CP 8.335. In respect to their relations to their dynamic
objects, I divide signs into Icons, Indices, and Symbols (a
division I gave in 1867). I define an Icon as a sign which is
determined by its dynamic object by virtue of its own
internal nature. Such is any qualisign, like a vision, — or
the sentiment excited by a piece of music considered as
representing what the composer intended. Such may be a
sinsign, like an individual diagram; say a curve of the
distribution of errors. I define an Index as a sign
determined by its dynamic object by virtue of being in a real
relation to it. Such is a Proper Name (a legisign); such is
the occurrence of a symptom of a disease. (The symptom itself
is a legisign, a general type of a definite character. The
occurrence in a particular case is a sinsign.) I define a
Symbol as a sign which is determined by its dynamic object
only in the sense that it will be so interpreted. It thus
depends either upon a convention, a habit, or a natural
disposition of its interpretant or of the field of its
interpretant (that of which the interpretant is a
determination). Every symbol is necessarily a legisign; for
it is inaccurate to call a replica of a legisign a symbol.
[End quote]
As you say in (2a), he classifies them in respect of their
relations and not as said relations themselves.`
6) > EDWINA: See my examples above; I don't think your
rewriting the above is 'the answer'! He also will sometimes
capitalize other terms (Symbol, Icon, Index, Representamen)
and at other times, use lower case.
It was 'the answer' for the quote that you chose to cite. You're
the one who said "*And often, he'll refer to the whole triad as
lower case 'sign' (see 2.243)* !". You have provided no example
where he uses either uncapitalized 'sign' or capitalized 'Sign'
to mean the whole triad, much less a quote where he stipulates
that he is doing so. Replacing instances of 'sign' with 'triad'
shows that your interpretation of CP 2.243 doesn't work.
5) > EDWINA: I'm sure you know that he often refers to the
whole triad in lower case; 'the readiest characteristic test
showing whether a sign is a Dicisign or not...' 2.310.
"Anything which determines something else (its interpretant)
to refer to an object to which itself refers (its object) in
the same way, the interpretant becoming in turn a sign"
2.303. And see 8.334--
I don't see it there in any of those quotes. Let's try the
substitution test with the text that you cite from CP 2.303. It
is Peirce's definition of 'sign' in the Baldwin Dictionary,
§4. Sign
303. Anything which determines something else (its
interpretant) to refer to an object to which itself refers
(its object) in the same way, the interpretant becoming in
turn a sign , and so on ad infinitum.
[End quote, redness added]
Substituting with 'triad' in the sense of
'representamen-object-interpretant' triad':
§4. Triad
303. Anything which determines something else (the triad's
interpretant) to refer to an object to which the triad itself
refers (the triad's object) in the same way, the interpretant
becoming in turn a triad , and so on ad infinitum.
The representamen-object-interpretant triad determines something
_/else/ _, which is the triad's interpretant?
EDWINA: Yes - As you know, a triad (Sign) does connect to
something else...
another Sign and so on ad infinitum...
-------------
And again I wonder what are the classes of representamina inside
those triads. Are they of the same classes as the triads? If so,
then what is gained by calling the whole triad the 'Sign' and
classifying it the same way as the representamen?
EDWINA: I have no idea what you mean by 'class of
representamina'. Representamens exist within the categorical
modes. Not classes. And I certainly don't classify the whole
triad (the Sign) in the same way as the Representamen. After all,
consier a Rhematic Indexical Legisign; it has THREE categorical
modes within it, in order, Firstness, Secondness and Thirdness.
Let's try it with another text that you cite:
CP 8.334. As it is in itself, a sign is either of the nature
of an appearance, when I call it a _/qualisign/ _; or
secondly, it is an individual object or event, when I call it
a _/sinsign/ _ (the syllable _/sin/ _ being the first
syllable of _/sem/ _el, _/sim/ _ul, _/sin/ _gular, etc.); or
thirdly, it is of the nature of a general type, when I call
it a _/legisign/ _. [....]
[End quote, redness added]
Replacing 'sign ' with 'triad ' in the sense of
'representamen-object-interpretant triad ':
As it is in itself, a triad is either of the nature of an
appearance, when I call the triad a _/qualisign/ _; or
secondly, the triad is an individual object or event, when I
call the triad a _/sinsign/ _ (the syllable _/sin/ _ being
the first syllable of _/sem/ _el, _/sim/ _ul, _/sin/ _gular,
etc.); or thirdly, the triad is of the nature of a general
type, when I call the triad a _/legisign/ _. [....]
Best, Ben
On 12/17/2014 4:52 PM, Edwina Taborsky wrote:
