Jon, List, The interpretant is itself a sign, so at least implicitly there is a separate triad (and on to infinity, given Peirce’s continuity of thought): 1902 | Carnegie Institution Correspondence | NEM 4:54 “A sign is something, A, which brings something, B, its interpretant sign, determined or created by it, into the same sort of correspondence (or a lower implied sort) with something, C, its object, as that in which itself stands to C.”
I think “same” in the quote you give has to be understood as the same kind, not the identical relation. The above quote makes this more clear. John Collier Professor Emeritus, UKZN http://web.ncf.ca/collier From: Jon Alan Schmidt [mailto:jonalanschm...@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, 29 December 2015 5:28 AM To: Edwina Taborsky; peirce-l@list.iupui.edu Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] RE: signs, correlates, and triadic relations - meta-languages and propositions of triadicity Edwina, List: Is it not the case, at least according to Peirce, that the interpretant-object relation is necessarily the same as the representamen-object relation? If so, then there is no need for a separate trichotomy to characterize it. "A Sign, or Representamen, is a First which stands in such a genuine triadic relation to a Second, called its Object, as to be capable of determining a Third, called its Interpretant, to assume the same triadic relation to its Object in which it stands itself to the same Object. The triadic relation is genuine, that is, its three members are bound together by it in a way that does not consist in any complexus of dyadic relations. That is the reason that the Interpretant, or Third, cannot stand in a mere dyadic relation to the Object, but must stand in such a relation to it as the Representamen itself does." (EP2:272-273) Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt<http://www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt> - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt<http://twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt> On Mon, Dec 28, 2015 at 7:14 PM, Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca<mailto:tabor...@primus.ca>> wrote: John, list: That's an extremely interesting suggestion, that the 'third relation' is that between the interpretant and the object. I have trouble with that, as the 9 relations (parameters according to Gary R) which are differentiated in terms of the modal category, do not refer to this interpretant-object relation. They refer to the representamen-in-itself, which I consider to be a relation-of-depth (providing an evolved over time generalization/set of habits); then, to the relation between the representamen-object; and the relation between the representamen-interpretant. I consider the representamen, which must act as 'mind-mediator' a vital relation, bringing its informational depth to deal with the R-O and R-I transitions. But the interpretant-object interaction - is it a relation? What mediates this interaction? I'm not denying its importance, for objective referentiality is vital to validate our experiences - otherwise we live within a purely rhetorical, fictional world detached from reality. 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 peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
