Edwina, List: I remain uncomfortable with calling the Representamen a "relation" and associating it with habits, but we can set that aside for now.
My understanding of our recent agreement on terminology was that going forward, we would always use "Sign" to refer to the (internal) *triad *of Immediate Object, Representamen, and Immediate Interpretant; and we would always characterize a Sign in this sense as the first correlate of a *triadic relation* in which the Dynamic Object and Dynamic Intepretant are the other two (external) correlates, such that every Sign *must *be determined by a Dynamic Object, and every Sign is *capable *of determining a Dynamic Interpretant (but might never actually do so). Are we still on the same page here? My question comes up because we (or at least I) typically think of a Sign from a logical standpoint as a *subject*, rather than a relation. Every Sign *has *relations, of course, both internal (Oi-R-Ii) and external (Od-S-Id). We also sometimes talk about "the Sign relation," usually meaning the triadic relation of which the Sign, Dynamic Object, and Dynamic Interpretant are the three correlates. What I am asking now is whether there is such a thing as a Sign that *is itself *a relation. Thanks, Jon S. On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 9:56 AM, Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> wrote: > Jon - This is part of an argument we've had before. It depends on the > terminology. > > For you, the term sign refers to what I term the Representamen, which I > consider the Relation of Mediation - and, which holds the habits developed > within Thirdness [it can, of course, be in a mode of Firstness or > Secondness]. > > I consider the triad, Sign [capital S] - to be the triad of > Object-Representamen-Interpretant - and acknowledge that the Object can > be the Immediate Object and the Interpretant can be potential. But, it > remains a triad. > > And - what does the term relation mean? > > So- "can a relation be a Sign'? It depends what you mean by each term. > > For me - the interactions, i.e., relations, are vital within the semiosic > process [which I see as an active process anyway]. I consider that there > are three key relations within the triad; that between the R-O; between > the R-I, and the Representamen in itself. The Representamen -in-itself is, > in my view, a Relation, seeking out its habits of organization and linking > them to the object and transforming them into the interpretant. > > So- at first thought, I'd say that A single relation can't be a Sign, > since the Sign requires a networked set of triadic Relations. > > But - is a law of Nature a Relation I'd say, yes, since the Law of Nature > operates as the Representamen, in a mode of Thirdness. > > Edwina > > -- > This message is virus free, protected by Primus - Canada's > largest alternative telecommunications provider. > > http://www.primus.ca > > On Wed 12/04/17 10:14 AM , Jon Alan Schmidt [email protected] sent: > > List: > > I was finally able to borrow Aaron Bruce Wilson's new book, Peirce's > Empiricism: Its Roots and Its Originality, via interlibrary loan this > week. Previously I could only access the Google preview, but from that I > could tell that the whole thing would be well worth reading. He points out > in chapter 2 that a law of nature is a relation, which leads me to pose a > new question--can a relation be a Sign? Again, I am referring to the > relation itself, not its representation in verbal, diagrammatic, or other > form. > > Regards, > > Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA > Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman > www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - 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 .
