Helmut, Sign, object and interpretant are the three correlates of a triadic relation. They are not matters of a sign’s composition. An immediate object could be considered a “matter of the sign’s composition” in the sense that it is “within” or “part of” the sign; a dynamic object is not. The concepts of sign, object and interpretant are products of the analysis of semiosic phenomena. Object and interpretant can be further subdivided as their categorial nature allows. The products of these analyses of semiosis are the basis of Peirce’s classifications of sign types.
Gary f. From: Helmut Raulien <[email protected]> Sent: 22-Jul-18 17:49 To: [email protected] Cc: [email protected] Subject: Aw: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Logical Depth and Signification Jon, Gary, list, i think that the matters of dichotomy, rheme, proposition, argument, are matters of sign classification, while sign, object (immediate and dynamic), interpretant (I,D,F), are matters of a sign´s composition. Different matters are different topics not to be blended: You can either talk about classes or parts. Of course both correspond, but not by identity or forcing both categorially separate topics together, e.g. saying that a rheme has no IO. Best, Helmut
----------------------------- 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 .
