Cecile, List: For some reason, I did not receive the post below directly, only appended to the replies from others.
As I explained to Helmut in another thread earlier today, according to Peirce, "Representamen" is either a generalization of "Sign" or synonymous with "Sign." He initially treated "Sign" as having the more restrictive meaning--"a Representamen with a mental Interpretant" (CP 2.274, EP 2:273; 1903)--but ultimately decided that "Sign" was preferable to "this horrid long word" (SS 193; 1905). It is consistent with Peirce's usage to say that "a sign is not a triadic relation (after all), but only the first correlate of a triadic relation"; and to represent that triadic relation, not the Sign itself, with the Y shape accordingly. The Sign, Object, and Interpretant would then be at the ends of the three tails, and the node in the middle would be the relation of representing or (more generally) mediating. However, the element of "directionality" (from Object through Sign to Interpretant) is missing. I typically use "semiosis" for the overall process, rather than an individual event of a Sign-Replica producing a Dynamic Interpretant, instead referring to the latter as an Instance of the Sign (cf. CP 4.537; 1906). Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt > On Tue 21/08/18 5:40 PM , Cécile Ménieu-Cosculluela > cecile.coscullu...@univ-pau.fr sent: > > Thank you Edwina, Jon, and Auke for answering/discussing my question, > which logically leads on to more questioning. > > I would agree with Edwina that the Y shape is more appropriate to > represent a triadic relation than the triangle, which results from three > dyadic relations. > > I'm a bit surprised that the word representamen does not appear in the > various posts. Since "a representamen is the First Correlate of a triadic > relation" (CP 2.242, 1903), I take it that Jon, you use the word sign > meaning representamen, right? I would have said that this is a restrictive > meaning, and that the word "sign" also has a wider meaning in which it can > be defined as a triadic relation. Would you agree that "sign" has these two > meanings? > > I've been re-reading the CP's and have only been able to find excerpts > that led me to conclude that only the first meaning appears in Peirce's > writings. So a sign is not a triadic relation (after all), but only the > first correlate of a triadic relation? (C.P. 2.274, 1902: "A Sign, or > Representamen, is a First which stands in such a genuine triadic relation > to a Second, called its Object, as to be capable of determining a Third, > called its Interpretant, to assume the same triadic relation to its Object > in which it stands itself to the same Object.") > > And consequently, the Y shape has been used by Peirce to refer to triadic > relations, not to represent signs, since signs are only representamens, not > triadic relations? (I'm kind of repeating what you said, Jon, to make sure > I'm getting it right and because that's not what I had understood.) > > Therefore, does that lead us to conclude that a triadic relation is not a > sign but a semiosis? So that the Y shape is a symbol that represents a > semiosis, not a sign? > > If this is the case, then does the word "semiosis" have two meanings: 1: > triadic relation, and 2: (infinite) sequence of triadic relations > (representamen --> object --> interpretant --> representamen --> object --> > interpretant --> etc. ad infinitum) ? > > Best regards, > > Cécile > Cécile Ménieu-Cosculluela, Ph.D. > Associate Professor of English > <http://www.univ-pau.fr/> > [image: Logo Université de Pau et des pays de l'Adour] > <http://www.univ-pau.fr/> > Collège Sciences Sociales et Humanités > Avenue du Doyen Poplawski > BP 1160 - 64013 PAU > FRANCE > http://www.univ-pau.fr > >
----------------------------- 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 .
