Jon, List,
your text is exactly fitting to the problem I had: With "own class" I meant "absolute essence" in the sense of "permanent properties", distinct from permanent properties of the other classes. Exactly with this permanence I have had a problem, because an interpretant may turn into a representamen, so it is not permanent. But it has properties, the two other sign elements do not have. These properties are not permanent within the interpretant itself, but in the concept of an interpretant. So now I am taking back my question, whether there is triadicity in semiotics- of course there is. I was just confused, sorry. Well, if this permanence merely exists in a concept, one might say: "Only animals with a mind have concepts, so, before there were such animals, there were no interpretants". But I do not think so, but think: Before there were animals with a mind, there already was the quasi-mind of the universe, and this has concepts too. I do not mean this theologically, just like proposing "conceptuality" for synonym with "reality".
Best,
Helmut
Helmut, List,
I wasn't completely sure about the meaning of your question:
• "Are interpretants an own class?"
Is "own" a translation of "eigen" maybe?
At any rate I went with my best guess and took you to be
asking whether interpretants (and the other two classes)
were ontologically distinctive in some way. I rewrote my
last reply as a blog post with this interpretation in mind:
• Relations & Their Relatives : 9
( http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2015/06/19/relations-their-relatives-9/ )
Please let me know if my reading of your sense is right or not.
Regards,
Jon
On 6/18/2015 6:51 PM, Helmut Raulien wrote:
> Supplement: On the other hand, even if interpretants are not an own class (or is
> the word "domain"?), their representations in a mind may well be, and certainly
> are. So- triadicity is rescued for me, I now think.
>
> Dear Jon, Peircers,
> I am wondering whether, mathematically spoken, there really are 3-adic relations
> in semiotics. An interpretant is a 2-adic relation (between representamen and
> object). But are interpretants an own class? Or are they a common class with
> representamens (syntactic domain)- or are some of them so, while others (the
> final interpretants) re-enter into the domain of objects? And: to regard the
> three sets objects, representamens, interpretants, doesnt this regarding (action
> of a mind) mean that they are represented? And doesnt representation by a mind
> mean, that these representations are all objects, other than the represented?
> So: Is the triadic relation between representamen, object and interpretant
> possibly a relation between three objects? In this case, it is not triadic: It
> is a 2-adic relation between the set of objects, and the same set of objects- at
> least reducible to this, I suspect. On the other hand one might say: The objects
> of a mind are divided into three classes: Representations of representamens,
> objects, and interpretants. Three classes mean 3-adicity. But then there is the
> problem again that I have mentioned: Are interpretants an own class?
> Best,
> Helmut
--
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 .
I wasn't completely sure about the meaning of your question:
• "Are interpretants an own class?"
Is "own" a translation of "eigen" maybe?
At any rate I went with my best guess and took you to be
asking whether interpretants (and the other two classes)
were ontologically distinctive in some way. I rewrote my
last reply as a blog post with this interpretation in mind:
• Relations & Their Relatives : 9
( http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2015/06/19/relations-their-relatives-9/ )
Please let me know if my reading of your sense is right or not.
Regards,
Jon
On 6/18/2015 6:51 PM, Helmut Raulien wrote:
> Supplement: On the other hand, even if interpretants are not an own class (or is
> the word "domain"?), their representations in a mind may well be, and certainly
> are. So- triadicity is rescued for me, I now think.
>
> Dear Jon, Peircers,
> I am wondering whether, mathematically spoken, there really are 3-adic relations
> in semiotics. An interpretant is a 2-adic relation (between representamen and
> object). But are interpretants an own class? Or are they a common class with
> representamens (syntactic domain)- or are some of them so, while others (the
> final interpretants) re-enter into the domain of objects? And: to regard the
> three sets objects, representamens, interpretants, doesnt this regarding (action
> of a mind) mean that they are represented? And doesnt representation by a mind
> mean, that these representations are all objects, other than the represented?
> So: Is the triadic relation between representamen, object and interpretant
> possibly a relation between three objects? In this case, it is not triadic: It
> is a 2-adic relation between the set of objects, and the same set of objects- at
> least reducible to this, I suspect. On the other hand one might say: The objects
> of a mind are divided into three classes: Representations of representamens,
> objects, and interpretants. Three classes mean 3-adicity. But then there is the
> problem again that I have mentioned: Are interpretants an own class?
> Best,
> Helmut
--
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 .
----------------------------- 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 .
