BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px; }
Jon - I see your point about what we have discussed is an INTERNAL
semiosis of the Immediate Object-Representamen-Immediate
Interpretant. I agree with this - since they are all in the same
mode, then, I can understand its being ONE Relation split into three
sectors. BUT, the point is, that this Internal Triad is not all there
is to semiosis. If there were - then frankly, semiosis wouldn't
exist...nor would anything else [i.e., matter/concepts].
The point is that this strictly internal complexity is necessarily
linked to the external world, in the basic case: with a Dynamic
Object. And possibly generating a Dynamic Interpretant. It is this
image that I am considering is the three-spokes.
The trichotomies are not relevant to this; they are simply
sets-of-three modes.
I'd agree with your suggestion that the rheme/dicent/argument might
work with the Dynamic Interpretant - considering that the Final
Interpretant has a more powerful function 'in the future', so to
speak.
Edwina
--
This message is virus free, protected by Primus - Canada's
largest alternative telecommunications provider.
http://www.primus.ca
On Thu 13/04/17 9:40 AM , Jon Alan Schmidt [email protected]
sent:
Edwina, List:
Again, my understanding is that the three-spoke diagram represents
one triadic relation. As such, it corresponds to only one of the ten
trichotomies of 1908--the very last one, "the Triadic Relation of the
Sign to the Dynamical Object and to its Normal Interpretant" (EP
2:483), which divides the Sign "As to the Nature of the Assurance of
the Utterance" (EP 2:490) into Instinct/Experience/Form. Hence the
spokes themselves are all in the same mode, even though the
correlates at their ends and the dyadic relations between those
correlates can be in different modes.
By contrast, the three trichotomies of 1903 are for "the sign in
itself" as Qualisign/Sinsign/Legisign, "the relation of the sign to
its Object" as Icon/Index/Symbol, and how "its Interpretant
represents it" as Rheme/Dicent/Argument (EP 2:291-292). Peirce
subsequently characterized the latter as "the Relation of the Sign to
the Normal Interpretant" (EP 2:483), but I have been suggesting
recently that it should be associated instead with the relation of
the Sign to the Dynamic Interpretant.
To be honest, given that the Sign relation is genuinely triadic, I
have never fully understood why Peirce initially classified Signs on
the basis of one correlate and two dyadic relations. Perhaps others
on the List can shed some light on that.
Regards,
Jon S.
On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 6:20 PM, Edwina Taborsky wrote:
Jon, list - thanks for your comments. A rapid response:
1) The reason I stick to the three relations - see Peirce's
8.335,8.337 comments on the relations to the Dynamic Object,
Relations to the Interpretant..but the reason is that each of the
three 'spikes' so to speak, can be in a different modal category. So,
in a rhematic indexical legisign, the Representamen spoke can be in
Thirdness; the relation to the Dynamic Object in a mode of
Secondness; the relation to the Dy. Interpretant in a mode of
Firstness. That's why I refer to relations in the plural. These
interactions most certainly are NOT independent - and my use of the
plural of RelationS doesn't imply their independence. Instead, it
implies their modal differentiation within this singular semiosic
interaction.
2) The problem I have with the linear image of the movement from DO
to DI...and Peirce often uses it, which is one relation with three
correlates, is that I also am interested in the morphological result
of the semiosis. Not simply in the passing of X via Y to Z. But the
physiological FORM. That is - referring to my oft-quoted 4.551 'Mind
..in crystal, in the work of bees'...etc... I am considering that the
Sign, that triad, takes on a FORM. This FORM is the full Sign. So, a
cell - let's say a single cell - is the semiosic Form, a Sign. This
is the result of the interaction of the Representamen HABITS
interacting with many Dynamic Objects [water, nutrients, chemicals,
etc etc]...which are then transformed via the HABITS held within the
Representamen into the Dynamic Interpretant - that CELL. BUT - all
three parts of this whole FORM/SIGN must be operative in this
semiosic process: The input from the various multiple Dynamic
Interpretants.....transformed via the general rules held by the
Representamen....resulting in the Dynamic Interpretant FORM of the
whole system...that particular cell.
Edwina
--
This message is virus free, protected by Primus - Canada's
largest alternative telecommunications provider.
http://www.primus.ca [2]
On Wed 12/04/17 6:33 PM , Jon Alan Schmidt [email protected]
[3] sent:
Edwina, List:
ET: A large issue is the definition of 'sign'. Is it the
representamen alone? Or is it the triad of the Immediate
Object-Represntamen-Immediate Interpretant? Or is it even larger -
and includes the Dynamic Object?
I believe that our recent joint resolution to use "Sign" only for
the internal Oi-R-Ii triad could go a long way toward clearing up
this particular terminological difficulty. The external Dynamic
Object is not part of the Sign itself, it is something distinct that
is in a single triadic relation with both the Sign and the external
Dynamic Interpretant.
ET: My problem is that I can't figure out what ONE triadic Relation
means. I can understand the 'umbrella image' of the triad [1.347],
which is something like a three spoked umbrella: -
Links:
------
[1]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'[email protected]\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
[2] http://www.primus.ca
[3]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'[email protected]\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
[4] http://www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt
[5] http://twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
[6] http://www.primus.ca
-----------------------------
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 .
