BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px; }
Oh dear - it was certainly nice while it lasted. I'm going to
disagree with your suggestion that there could be a Representamen
without an external Dynamic Object...at some point in its experience.
That is, I don't see the Representamen - or any of the triad - as
'standing alone'. Peirce DOES, after all, define the Representamen as
'the first correlate of a triadic relation'. A Representamen, in my
understanding, acts as mediation and how can such an action exist -
except within mediation or interaction with something else?
Equally, I can't see that the INTERNAL object, i.e., the
Immediate Object could exist without the iconic or indexical or
symbolic stimuli of an external Dynamic Object. I can, however,
accept that there might be only an internal Immediate Interpretant
which never makes it to the externality of being a Dynamic
Interpretant. And it is still possible that the Representamen might
be functioning only within the stimulation of a Dynamic
Object-Immediate Object and does not actually produce even an
Immediate Interpretant.
And I see your image of a triad made up of the Internal aspects of
the Object-Interpretant, I,e, the Immediate
Object-Representamen-Immediate interpretant, but, I still consider
that the real genuine triad has to have that externality.
Edwina
--
This message is virus free, protected by Primus - Canada's
largest alternative telecommunications provider.
http://www.primus.ca
On Fri 31/03/17 5:29 PM , Jon Alan Schmidt [email protected]
sent:
Edwina, List:
At the risk of pressing our luck, since we have already unexpectedly
identified at least two points of agreement today, I would like to
revisit (selectively) some comments that I posted yesterday.
CSP: A Representamen is the First Correlate of a triadic relation,
the Second Correlate being termed its Object, and the possible Third
Correlate being termed its Interpretant, by which triadic relation
the possible Interpretant is determined to be the First Correlate of
the same triadic relation to the same Object, and for some possible
Interpretant. (EP 2:290, emphases in original; 1903)
Notice that Peirce twice characterized the Interpretant as
"possible"; here is a second passage that touches on that.
CSP: Namely, while no Representamen actually functions as such
until it actually determines an Interpretant, yet it becomes a
Representamen as soon as it is fully capable of doing this; and its
Representative Quality is not necessarily dependent upon its ever
actually determining an Interpretant, nor even upon its actually
having an Object. (CP 2.275, emphases added; c. 1902)
My understanding is thus that every Sign/Representamen has an
Immediate Object and determines an Immediate Interpretant, because
those are real possibilities that are internal to it; but evidently
there might be such a thing as a Sign/Representamen that has no
Dynamic Object and/or (especially) determines no Dynamic
Interpretant, because those are external to it. I wonder if
recognizing these distinctions--possible vs. actual, and internal vs.
external--could be a way to reconcile "the Sign as triad" (with
Immediate Object/Interpretant) and "the Sign as one correlate of a
triadic relation" (with Dynamic Object/Interpretant).
What do you think?
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USAProfessional Engineer, Amateur
Philosopher, Lutheran Laymanwww.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt [1] -
twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt [2]
Links:
------
[1] http://www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt
[2] http://twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
-----------------------------
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 .
