Edwina,
You say: " . . . the 9 Relations are not dyads . . ."
(122915-1)
I say: " The 9 Relations are dyadic relations, not triadic ones."
(1229151-2)
I think you also meant (122915-2).
Sung
On Tue, Dec 29, 2015 at 5:57 PM, Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca> wrote:
> Sung - as I have repeatedly said, and which you continue to ignore, the 9
> Relations are not dyads. A dyad operates within two existentialities, and
> the Object-Representamen-Interpretant are not each existentialities in
> themselves.
>
> The icon doesn't need an *existential *object or interpretant but it
> still functions within a triadic semiosis.
>
> Edwina
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* Sungchul Ji <s...@rci.rutgers.edu>
> *To:* Matt Faunce <mattfau...@gmail.com>
> *Cc:* PEIRCE-L <peirce-l@list.iupui.edu>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, December 29, 2015 4:34 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [PEIRCE-L] RE: signs, correlates, and triadic relations
>
> Hi Matt.
>
> I agree that "icon" can be a triadic sign if there is the object it refers
> to and the intepretant it determines on its interpreter, whether here and
> now, or sometime in the future. In this sense, all of the 9 types of signs
> are triadic signs as I have been advocating against Edwina's view that they
> are not signs because they only refer to dyadic relations, i.e., R-R, R-O
> and R-I relations in 3 categorical modes.
>
> But, icons are different from index or from symbols in that it can act as
> a sign even without its object and interpretant (as Pointed out by Peirce)
> neither now nor in the future, like the lead-pencil streak on a
> blackboard. It is in this sense that I am referring to icon as a monadic
> sign, and index a dyadic sign and symbol as a triadic sign. Again, I admit
> that, depending on the context, icon, index and symbol can be viewed as
> triadic as mentioned above. This is what I mean by the "ambiguity of the
> sign":
>
> "Icon can be viewed as triadic or dyadic, depending on the context of
> discourse." (122915-1)
>
> Sung
>
> On Tue, Dec 29, 2015 at 3:30 PM, Matt Faunce <mattfau...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Peirce's "there were" means 'existent'. In the past, here, I've spoken of
>> the "potential interpretant". In the hypothetical science that mathematics
>> is, a pencil-lead streak forming a (rough but acceptable) circle signifies
>> the hypothetical object of a perfect circle. In these cases the signs are
>> still only signs within their triad; it's just that the object or
>> interpretant doesn't need to be existent.
>>
>> Matt
>>
>> On 12/29/15 3:14 PM, Matt Faunce wrote:
>>
>> On 12/29/15 2:56 PM, Sungchul Ji wrote:
>>
>> Jon A, List,
>>
>> Here is one quotation of Pierce cited in Charles Peirce's Guess at the
>> Riddle (K. Sheriff, Indiana University Press, Bloomington, 1994):
>>
>> "A sinsign may be index or icon. As index it is 'a sign which would, at
>> once, (122915-1)
>> lose the chracter wich makes it a sign if its object were removed, but
>> would
>> not lose that character if there were no interpretant."
>>
>> That's in CP 2.304
>>
>> "A sign is either an icon, an index, or a symbol. An icon is a sign which
>> would possess the character which renders it significant, even though its
>> object had no existence; such as a lead-pencil streak as representing a
>> geometrical line. An index is a sign which would, at once, lose the
>> character which makes it a sign if its object were removed, but would not
>> lose that character if there were no interpretant. Such, for instance, is a
>> piece of mould with a bullet-hole in it as sign of a shot; for without the
>> shot there would have been no hole; but there is a hole there, whether
>> anybody has the sense to attribute it to a shot or not. A symbol is a sign
>> which would lose the character which renders it a sign if there were no
>> interpretant. Such is any utterance of speech which signifies what it does
>> only by virtue of its being understood to have that signification."
>>
>>
>>
>> So it seems to me that (122915-1) establishes the concept of a *dyadic
>> sign*.
>>
>> Therefore,
>>
>> "Not all signs are triadic."
>> (122915-2)
>>
>> as some Peirceans on this list seem to believe.
>>
>> All the best.
>>
>> Sung
>>
>>
>>
>> -----------------------------
>> 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 .
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> 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
> 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
> .
>
>
>
>
>
--
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 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 .
