Jon, Edwina, lists,
We went over this issue several times on these lists. I think Edwina is
right that Peirce used the term "sign" in dual meanings, which can be
explained graphically thus:
f g
Object --------> Representamen -------> Interpretant
|
^
|
|
|__________________________________|
h
Figure 1. A diagrammatic representation of the triadic sign of
Peirce. In words, this diagram states that "Object determines
Representamen which in turn determines Intepretant in such a way that
Interpretant is related to Object in the same way that Representamen is
related to it."
Now the confusion arises because Peirce often replaced Representamen with
Sign, i.e., used Sign and Representamen interachangeably:
f g
Object ---------> Sign --------> Interpretant
| ^
| |
|__________________________|
h
Figure 2. A diagrammatic representation of the definition of the
triadic sign of Peirce in which the term, i.e., sign, being defined appears
as a part of the definition itself.
The definition of the triadic sign given in Figure 2 is reminiscent of the
"recursive definition" widely occurring in computer science and mathematics:
"A recursive definition of a function defines values of the functions for
some inputs in terms of the values of the same function for other inputs.
For example, the factorial <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Factorial>
function *n*! is defined by the rules
. . .
(*n*+1)! = (*n*+1)ยท*n*!"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recursive_definition
"*Recursion* is the process of repeating items in a self-similar
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-similarity> way."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recursion
To distinguish between these two kinds of signs, it may be rational and
economical (in terms of avoiding the waste of time caused by terminological
confusions) to designate the former with the capital S (as suggested by
Edwina) and the latter with the lower case S, i.e., "Sign" vs. "sign". Or,
in words, "Sign" may be referred to as the "triadic sign" (in that it
requires three arrows to be defined; Figure 1) and the "sign" as the
"dyadic sign" since its definition requires only two arrows (Figure 2).
All the best.
Sung
On Sun, Aug 16, 2015 at 4:24 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt <[email protected]>
wrote:
> Edwina, List:
>
> 1. I am following Short in using "sign" to refer to what some call the
> "representamen" or "sign-vehicle." The triad is not the sign; rather, the
> sign is one of three relata in the triad, along with the object and
> interpretant.
>
> 2,3,4. My understanding is that every sign has three different (but not
> independent) interpretants--immediate, dynamic, and final--each with its
> own trichotomy. The immediate interpretant has no distinct relation with
> the sign, which is why it is called "immediate"; the same is true of the
> immediate object. However, the dynamic object, dynamic interpretant, and
> final interpretant do have distinct relations with the sign, each with its
> own trichotomy; and the triadic relation among the sign, dynamic object,
> and final interpretant provides yet another trichotomy. Hence there are
> ten trichotomies and 66 classes of signs once the rule of determination is
> applied--"It is evident that a Possible can determine nothing but a
> Possible; it is equally so that a Necessitant can be determined by nothing
> but a Necessitant." See EP2:481-490 for all of this, which I thought was
> pretty basic stuff in Peirce.
>
> My original question pertains to the proper ordering of the three
> interpretant trichotomies in accordance with the rule of determination.
> Since Peirce gave this order as "destinate," then "effective," then
> "explicit" (EP2:481), it is not clear whether he meant Ii>Id>If (as
> commonly assumed) or If>Id>Ii (as argued by Mueller, Morand, and Udell).
> The whole issue is meaningless if the 10-trichotomy, 66-class taxonomy is
> rejected in favor of a modified 3-trichotomy, 10-class taxonomy in which
> immediate/dynamic/final is the trichotomy for the (one)
> interpretant--something that I have not come across in any of Peirce's own
> writings or the secondary literature so far.
>
> Regards,
>
> Jon
>
> On Sun, Aug 16, 2015 at 9:05 AM, Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>> Jon:
>> I think that there has to be some clarification of terms.
>>
>> 1) You use the term 'sign' to mean both the triad of
>> Object-Representamen-Interpretant, which I always clarify by capitalizing
>> as *S*ign.
>>
>> And you also use the same term, if I understand you correctly, to refer
>> to only the mediating process in the triad, the Representamen.
>>
>> [Peirce did the same thing - but I think one has to mull through his
>> writings to see what he exactly meant].
>>
>> 2) You yourself brought up the three-phase actions of the Interpretant,
>> so, I'm confused now..for after all, the Interpretant, in all its phases,
>> is in a Relation with the Representamen (which you term as 'sign'].
>>
>> 3) You write:
>> "you are aligning the immediate/dynamic/final interpretants with
>> rheme/dicent/argument, rather than the relation of sign to the final
>> interpretant only."
>>
>> Now, if I understand you in the above, you are focusing on "the relation
>> of the *Representamen* to the final interpretant'. I don't see that it
>> is possible for the semiosic triad to exclude, in its semiosic process, the
>> two less complex Interpretants; namely, the immediate and dynamic. All
>> three are, in my view, in a Relation with the Representamen. So - what am I
>> misunderstanding in your questions?
>>
>> 4) I don't see that the Peircean sign moves away from the basic triad;
>> there's no 'ten-trichotomy'. There are microphases of the triad: dynamic
>> object-immediate object - Representamen - and the Immediate, Dynamic and
>> Final Interpretants ..which brings us to only six microparts. And you can
>> then add in the modes which increases the complexity - where the Dynamic
>> Object can be in any one of the three modes; and the Representamen can be
>> in any one of the three modes. BUT - although this increases the
>> *internal* complexity of the Sign, as you point out, ....I'm not sure
>> how it moves away from the basic format of the triad.
>>
>> I would say that this internal complexity increases the ability of matter
>> to adapt to environmental stimuli.
>>
>> So- I am obviously missing something in your argument!
>>
>> Edwina
>>
>
>
> -----------------------------
> 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
> .
>
>
>
>
>
>
--
Sungchul Ji, Ph.D.
Associate Professor of Pharmacology and Toxicology
Department of Pharmacology and Toxicology
Ernest Mario School of Pharmacy
Rutgers University
Piscataway, N.J. 08855
732-445-4701
www.conformon.net
-----------------------------
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 .
