Cecile, Edwina, List: CMC: Since the representamen is the first correlate, isn't it more consistent to talk about R-O-I ?
As is often the case, it depends on one's *purpose*. R-O-I is indeed how Peirce presented the three Correlates in certain passages, but O-R-I is the well-established order of semeiotic determination; the Object determines the Sign, which determines the Interpretant. This *logical *(not temporal) sequence is preserved even when we account for two Objects and three Interpretants. CSP: ... the Dynamoid [Dynamic] Object determines the Immediate Object, which determines the Sign itself, which determines the Destinate [Final] Interpretant, which determines the Effective [Dynamic] Interpretant, which determines the Explicit [Immediate] Interpretant ... (EP 2:481; 1908) Moreover, I agree that having the Sign/Representamen "in the middle" properly emphasizes its mediating role, *between *the Object and Interpretant. Regards, Jon S. On Wed, Aug 22, 2018 at 3:44 PM, Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca> wrote: > Cecile, list > > Yes, I agree that we should all create and be responsible for our own > interpretation of Peirce's work - particularly since both our expertise and > focus are different. > > I am aware of Peirce's outline in 2.242, with the "Representamen is the > First Correlate of a triadic relation, the Second Correlate being termed > its Object, and the possible third Correlate being termed its Interpretant". > > See also 1.274, "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 its stands itself to the same > Object". And note, that the terms of First, Second, Third do NOT refer to > the modal categories, but to the order of semiosic actions. See also 2.92. > > In Peirce's ten classes of signs - see 2.254, he actually puts the > Interpretant first, followed by the Object, and last - the Representamen! > > The reason I put the Representamen in the middle, is because its function > is to be 'in the middle', i.e., to accept input data from an external > source and then, mediate it, to result in an Interpretant. > > Edwina > > On Wed 22/08/18 4:15 PM , Cécile Ménieu-Cosculluela > cecile.coscullu...@univ-pau.fr sent: > > Edwina, Jon, Jeff, List, > > It seems logical that we should all create and be responsible for our own > interpretation of Peirce's work and it is enriching to be able to discuss > together our personal understanding as we keep on thinking it over, thereby > complying with the semiosic law of our ever-expanding universe. I need some > more time to get my ideas clear on the various interesting points that you > have been raising. One little key thing that struck me as surprising is > that the sign should be equated with O-R-I. Since the representamen is the > first correlate, isn't it more consistent to talk about R-O-I ? > > Best regards to you all, > > Cécile > Cécile Ménieu-Cosculluela, Ph.D. > Associate Professor of English > > [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 > > Le 8/22/2018 à 2:37 AM, Jon Alan Schmidt a écrit : > > 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 .
