Jon S,
Thanks for noticing and fixing my typo (NDDR for NDTR) (I can’t blame that on the youngster). The question you raise is an interesting one. When I wrote that “the rheme/dicisign/argument trichotomy cannot be defined in terms of dyadic relations,” I was reflecting on the fact that in NDTR at least, Peirce’s definitions of those terms explicitly refer to the Object, and thus seem to require mention of all three correlates, while the definitions of icon and index, and perhaps symbol, require no mention of the third correlate. I say “perhaps” in the case of the symbol because it “denotes by virtue of a law” which “operates to cause the Symbol to be interpreted as referring to that Object,” which does refer obliquely to the interpretant.” But the three definitions of the third trichotomy refer directly to the object; “we may say that a Rheme is a sign which is understood to represent its object in its characters merely; that a Dicisign is a sign which is understood to represent its object in respect to actual existence; and that an Argument is a Sign which is understood to represent its Object in its character as Sign” (CP2:252). Nevertheless, I wouldn’t say that it’s dead wrong to consider that third trichotomy as being according to the dyadic Sign-Interpretant relation. Another possibility is to consider it as being divided according to the dyadic relation between the Interpretant and the Sign-Object relation. But I wouldn’t want to be forced to choose among those options. As long as we know what we’re talking about … (more or less) … Gary f. From: Jon Alan Schmidt [mailto:jonalanschm...@gmail.com] Sent: 14-Apr-17 13:12 To: Gary Fuhrman <g...@gnusystems.ca> Cc: peirce-l@list.iupui.edu Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Dyadic relations within the triadic Gary F., List: This is very helpful, thank you for posting it. It is interesting that in NDTR, Peirce treated the three monadic correlate divisions and three dyadic relation divisions as each generating a different set of ten Sign classes. Tony Jappy has suggested that we should perhaps maintain these two separate approaches when expanding to two Objects and three Interpretants, rather than trying to integrate them into a single series of ten trichotomies to produce 66 Sign classes. This figure is from his 1989 paper, "Peirce's Sixty-Six Signs Revisited," in Gerard Deledalle, Ed., Semiotics and Pragmatics: Proceedings of the Perpignan Symposium. GF: Peirce devotes the rest of [NDTR] to the division of sign relations, i.e. the classification of signs. For this purpose he applies the three trichotomies introduced above, one of which is according to the dyadic relation between the first and second correlates, the Sign and its Object. These are “constituted” by the triadic relation of which sign and object are two correlates. Since the other correlate, the Interpretant, is “mental” and is the most complex of the three, the rheme/dicisign/argument trichotomy cannot be defined in terms of dyadic relations. So the first 1903 trichotomy (Qualisign/Sinsign/Legisign) is for the Sign considered monadically, and the second (Icon/Index/Symbol) is for the dyadic Sign-Object relation that we can prescind from the triadic Sign-Object-Interpretant relation. However, you seem to be saying that the third trichotomy (Rheme/Dicent/Argument) is not for the dyadic Sign-Interpretant relation that we can likewise prescind. That would be contrary to not only most (maybe all) of the secondary literature that I have read on this topic, but also what Peirce himself wrote later in the same 1904 letter to Lady Welby that you quoted. CSP: In regard to its relation to its signified interpretant, a sign is either a Rheme, a Dicent, or an Argument. (CP 8.337) Are you claiming that the Sign-Interpretant relation in this context is somehow not dyadic like the Sign-Object relation? I am still inclined to think that it is dyadic in much the same way--which, by the way, strikes me as another reason to associate this particular trichotomy with the relation of the Sign to the Dynamic Interpretant, rather than the Final Interpretant; again, I recognize that this is a departure from Peirce. Otherwise, what alternative relation is this trichotomy dividing? Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt <http://www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt> - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt <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 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 .
