Edwina, List: ET: BUT - to be clear, I still see this internal triad as ONE SET of three irreducible Relations. I suspect that you don't see this internal triad as made up of Relations, while I still see it that way - although the bond is so tight that none of the three can be seen as 'individual relations'; i.e., not as THREE Relations.
Peirce ultimately did not distinguish between the Immediate Object/Interpretant and their relations to the Representamen when making the longer lists of trichotomies for Sign classification, and we now agree that the three of them together (as a triad) constitute the Sign. As such, I am inclined to think of them as more analytic than actual; specifically, as constraints on *how *the Sign *can *represent its Dynamic Object and determine a Dynamic Interpretant. ET: As to your last question - I think I see what you are talking about - but, I think the term 'relation' needs more unpacking. Probably so. Peirce seems to have used "relation" as a close synonym of "predicate," but I would welcome further suggestions for what it means to say that a law of nature is a relation and/or that a relation is a Sign. Thanks, Jon S. On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 11:32 AM, Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> wrote: > Jon, list > > 1) The Representamen does carry the general habits; that is, where are > these generals located in a 'thing'? I'll take the example of a cell; its > habits, which function to mould its material content and its interactions > with other cells - are, as I understand it, operative within Thirdness and > carried within the Representamen. > > So- I see this action as a Relation . But -agreed, we'll leave it for now. > > 2) I agree with your second paragraph. - just a few quibbles.. > > JON> "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?" > > EDWINA: BUT - to be clear, I still see this internal triad as ONE SET of > three irreducible Relations. I suspect that you don't see this internal > triad as made up of Relations, while I still see it that way - although the > bond is so tight that none of the three can be seen as 'individual > relations'; i.e., not as THREE Relations. I agree with its being the first > correlate of a larger triadic Set, made up of the other two external > correlates in addition to this basic Internal triad. These two external > correlates are not bonded within the triad, as the interactions are within > the Internal Triad. That leaves them open. I agree with the necessary > determination of the DO, and the Sign [that internal triad] being capable > of determining a DI - but not necessarily doing so. > > So- most of your outline I agree with; I'm just still having trouble with > that Internal Triad - which although I agree is ONE set - and probably > operates within ONE modal category - I still want to be able to > differentiate each 'node' so to speak - even though none of the three > 'nodes' [ Immediate Object-Representamen-Immediate Interpretant] can have > any actuality except within that internal bond. > > 3) As to your last question - I think I see what you are talking about - > but, I think the term 'relation' needs more unpacking. > > Edwina > > -- > This message is virus free, protected by Primus - Canada's > largest alternative telecommunications provider. > > http://www.primus.ca > > On Wed 12/04/17 12:12 PM , Jon Alan Schmidt [email protected] sent: > > 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 .
