Janos - I think that it might help if you defined your use of the terms:
representamen and sign. Without this definition, I am puzzled by your
comment.
A representamen is, in the Peircean framework, the mediative aspect of the
semiosic triad. Therefore, it doesn't 'exist per se' on its own as a sign.
It isn't, in itself, a triadic sign. And no, I don't agree that 'in sign
generation, a representamen in the mode of firstness must be involved
always'. Again, I suggest that you read the Peircean outline CP 2.254 etc,
to understand that the representamen is in a mode of Firstness in only one
of the ten sign classes - and, to understand that the representamen is never
'interpreted as a sign'; it is one part of the semiosic triad that makes up
the Sign.
Edwina
----- Original Message -----
From: "Janos Sarbo" <[email protected]>
To: "Edwina Taborsky" <[email protected]>; <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2015 10:40 AM
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] A question about the triadic relation of Sign
Edwina:
In my view any representamen can be interpreted as a sign, and can be
interpreted as a sign of any one of the 10 sign types. Which one of those
types the arising sign will have depends on the interpreting system's
state, knowledge, etc. From this I conclude that, in sign generation, a
representamen in the mode of firstness must be involved always. I think
this view is compatible with the analytical one, by virtue of the
involvement and subservience relation between the categories and so the
hierarchy of sign aspects.
Best,
janos
On 01/26/2015 02:49 PM, Edwina Taborsky wrote:
Janos: I don't agree that the triad requires the representamen to be
always 'interpreted as a quality', i.e., in the mode of Firstness. If
you take a look at the ten classes of signs (2.256 as outlined in 1903),
you will see that in only one of these ten classes is the Representamen
in a mode of Firstness. It is in a mode of Secondness in three, and in a
mode of Thirdness in six classes.
Edwina
----- Original Message ----- From: "Janos Sarbo" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 26, 2015 4:12 AM
Subject: [PEIRCE-L] A question about the triadic relation of Sign
Lists,
I have a question about triadic relation of Sign. If I correctly
understand this concept, the generation of an irreducible triadic
relation of representamen, object and interpretant, requires the
representamen to be interpreted as a quality. The arising triadic
relation must be a (novel) quality as well. This brings me to my
question: How is the concept of a Sign (and so thirdness) different from
the concept of a qualitative change?
Best regards,
Janos Sarbo
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------
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 .
