> On Oct 23, 2015, at 2:34 PM, Clark Goble <[email protected]> wrote: > > As for the triadic relation I completely disagree he doesn’t deal with this. > The whole point is that Saussure offers only a dualistic relationship of the > sign in opposition to Peirce’s triadic relationship. This then becomes key to > Derrida’s difference which arises out of the problem of there not being an > absolute difference. For any two categories that are raised as differences > his focus is on what enables this difference which it turns out is the sign > and the essential sign-relation of Perice’s semiotics. Even in later works > when he stops talking about Peirce this triadic relationship and the problem > of absolute divides he’s still focused on this logic of continuity and > triadic nature of the sign. It’s just that Derrida is usually doing an > immanent critique using the language of whatever philosopher he’s engaged > with. But fundamentally he’s just playing up the difference between a dualism > notion of sign versus Peirce’s semiotics.
To add to this differánce ends up being a pun because it is really Peirce’s sign. There’s first a temporal difference where the meaning of the object of the sign is tied up with semiosis and thus time. It’s also caught up with the structuralist (and especially Saussurean) notion of having a field of differences rather than pure references to absolute things. But to make this difference requires a trichotomy not a dualism. (thing 1, thing 2, and the difference) So if things are given in differences and that givenness comes as a hint due to the nature of signs you have these double aspects to the sign. Now it’s true Peirce doesn’t focus on the objects as differences part of this analysis. Part of Derrida’s point is an immanent criticism of Saussure in terms of this role of difference in terms of Peirce’s semiotics. Again there are a slew of reasons to critique Derrida. The strongest place ends up being the place (or absence) of indices in Derrida’s use of Peirce. He emphasizes far more symbol types of signs. Now I don’t think this critique ends up being sound, but it is a definite place where one can (and many have) critiqued the relationship.
----------------------------- 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 .
