Edwina, Cecile, List,
Edwina wrote:
1] The 2.242 list of ten classes, which puts the Interpretant, Object and
Representamen relations in that order - is merely a NAME of a type of
semiosic Sign. As for this name representing adjectives before a noun - I
am not aware of any proof of this claim - and so, have no comment.
The principal 'proof' of each name "representing adjectives before a noun"
is that Peirce himself names each of the 10 sign classes in the order
Edwina gave above, viz. Interpretant-Object-Representamen (the order of
involution whereas 3ns involves 2ns and 1ns, and 2ns involves 1ns) and
*always* gives the Representamen last as a noun, the other two as
adjectives. So, for example.
CP 2.256 Third: A Rhematic Indexical Sinsign.
CP 2.269 Sixth: A Rhematic Indexical Legisign.
(Note, some signs can be named with fewer than three 'sub-parts' named
since the omitted 'sub-part'--of course, not literally a '*component*
part'--is necessarily implied in Peirce's logical schema of the 10
classes.)
Edwina continued:
4] Finally, with regard to 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".
ET: I understand the above to refer to order-of-influence. The terms of
'First, Second, Third' do not refer to the three modal categories, but to
the ordinal linear lines-of-informational actions.
I disagree. Here and elsewhere Peirce associates Sign, Object, and
Interpretant with the categories. That the Sign mediates between the Object
and the Representamen is a consequence of its following the vector, or
order, of determination (2ns -> 1ns -> 3ns). We have already seen another
vector, that of the order of involution (3ns -> 2ns -> 1ns) in naming the
10 classes in the discussion above. (It is possible that all 6, or at least
most of the 6 possible vectors are involved in different facets of
semiosis.)
I am not familiar with the expression "order-or-influence" in Peirce's
writings nor the "ordinal linear lines-of-informational actions" (I have
absolutely no idea what either phrase might mean since, as I see it, and
especially since *no* order whatsoever is implied in the passage quoted).
Best,
Gary
On Thu 30/08/18 5:14 PM , Cécile Ménieu-Cosculluela
cecile.coscullu...@univ-pau.fr sent:
Edwina, Jon, List,
I too believe that
it is only because adjectives always come before nouns in English that the
S-FI and S-DO terms precede the S term. In another language (e.g.,
Spanish) where adjectives can come after the nouns that they modify, one
would presumably refer to a Sinsign Indexical Rhematic.
Indeed, in French for instance, a Rhematic Indexical Sinsign is "un
sinsigne indiciaire rhématique".
If I understand you correctly, Edwina and Jon, you both think that in
semiosis the object is first, the representamen second, and the
interpretant third?
Edwina:
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.
Jon:
I also find it misleading to suggest that the Sign/Representamen comes
first in semiosis. As I have noted recently, since the Sign mediates
between the Object and Interpretant, the "directionality" is instead from the
Object through the Sign to the Interpretant.
I find it all the more difficult to understand your perspective as you are
both
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".
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".
Do you think there's any chance we might agree that this is a bit like
trying to decide who comes first, the chicken or the egg? Isn't the
continuity of semiosis summed up by R1-02-I3 and so on ad infinitum? So we
might say that an O initiates a semiosis through a R for an I, or present
that logical chain starting with any of its 3 elements since what truly
characterizes a semiosis is the synergy between the 3 correlates?
Best,
Attachments area
*Gary Richmond*
*Philosophy and Critical Thinking*
*Communication Studies*
*LaGuardia College of the City University of New York*
*718 482-5690*
On Thu, Aug 30, 2018 at 6:15 PM Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca> wrote:
> Cecile, list:
>
> 1] The 2.242 list of ten classes, which puts the Interpretant, Object and
> Representamen relations in that order - is merely a NAME of a type of
> semiosic Sign. As for this name representing adjectives before a noun - I
> am not aware of any proof of this claim - and so, have no comment.
>
> 2] But the actual semiosic process of course has to be an informational
> movement and transformation from the Dynamic Object to/via
> the Representamen to the Interpretant[s].
>
> 3] With regard to: 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"......my view is
> that the term of 'First Correlate, Second Correlate, Third Correlate'
> refers to the domination or informational power of each Relation. That is,
> the habits of thought, as stored in the Representamen, have
> cognitive authority over the other two Relations [that between the R and
> DO; that between the R and DI]. And the informational content of the
> Dynamic Object is more authoritative/full-of-information' than that of the
> Interpretant.
>
> 4] Finally, with regard to 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".
>
> I understand the above to refer to order-of-influence. The terms of
> 'First, Second, Third' do not refer to the three modal categories, but to
> the ordinal linear lines-of-informational actions.
>
> 5] Does O initiate a semiosis? Yes but only within a triadic process that
> includes the R. So, is a rock {Object] falling a semiosic action? Not
> necessarily, but, if that falling rock smashes against other rocks, which -
> via the habits of formation of their mineral properties....results in a
> white sandy beach...well, I'd consider that a semiosic process.
>
> Edwina
>
>
> On Thu 30/08/18 5:14 PM , Cécile Ménieu-Cosculluela
> cecile.coscullu...@univ-pau.fr sent:
>
> Edwina, Jon, List,
>
> I too believe that
>
> it is only because adjectives always come before nouns in English that
> the S-FI and S-DO terms precede the S term. In another language (e.g.,
> Spanish) where adjectives can come after the nouns that they modify, one
> would presumably refer to a Sinsign Indexical Rhematic.
>
> Indeed, in French for instance, a Rhematic Indexical Sinsign is "un
> sinsigne indiciaire rhématique".
>
> If I understand you correctly, Edwina and Jon, you both think that in
> semiosis the object is first, the representamen second, and the
> interpretant third?
>
> Edwina:
>
> 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.
>
> Jon:
>
> I also find it misleading to suggest that the Sign/Representamen comes
> first in semiosis. As I have noted recently, since the Sign mediates
> between the Object and Interpretant, the "directionality" is instead from the
> Object through the Sign to the Interpretant.
>
> I find it all the more difficult to understand your perspective as you are
> both
>
> 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".
> 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".
>
> Do you think there's any chance we might agree that this is a bit like
> trying to decide who comes first, the chicken or the egg? Isn't the
> continuity of semiosis summed up by R1-02-I3 and so on ad infinitum? So we
> might say that an O initiates a semiosis through a R for an I, or present
> that logical chain starting with any of its 3 elements since what truly
> characterizes a semiosis is the synergy between the 3 correlates?
>
> Best,
>
> 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 8/29/2018 à 9:46 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt a écrit :
>
> Edwina, Cecile, List:
>
> I find it misleading to say that Peirce "put the Interpretant first" in CP
> 2.254. The three trichotomies of his 1903 taxonomy correspond to the Sign
> itself
> as Qualisign/Sinsign/Legisign, the relation of the Sign to its (Dynamic)
> Object as Icon/Index/Symbol, and the relation of the Sign to its (Final)
> Interpretant as Rheme/Dicent/Argument. As such, the first trichotomy
> provides the noun in each of the class names, while the other two
> trichotomies supply the modifying adjectives; and it is only because
> adjectives always come before nouns in English that the S-FI and S-DO
> terms precede the S term. In another language (e.g., Spanish) where
> adjectives can come after the nouns that they modify, one would
> presumably refer to a Sinsign Indexical Rhematic.
>
> I also find it misleading to suggest that the Sign/Representamen comes
> first in semiosis. As I have noted recently, since the Sign mediates
> between the Object and Interpretant, the "directionality" is instead from the
> Object through the Sign to the Interpretant. Moreover, the order of
> (logical/semeiotic) determination per EP 2:481 is not DO-IO-S-II-DI-FI, but
> DO-IO-S-FI-DI-II; the Destinate Interpretant is the Final Interpretant and
> the Explicit Interpretant is the Immediate Interpretant, not the other way
> around.
>
> Finally, while Peirce's Categories do not directly apply to Sign
> classification, they are reflected in the three Universes of Possibles,
> Existents, and Necessitants by which Signs are divided in each of the ten
> trichotomies of his 1908 taxonomy.
>
> Regards,
>
> Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
> Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman
> www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
>
> On Wed, Aug 29, 2018 at 12:59 PM, Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca>
> wrote:
>
>> Cecile, list
>>
>> I refer to 2.254 - I don't know why his outline puts the Interpretant,
>> or, Conclusion, first in the 'name' eg a Rhematic Indexical Sinsign.
>>
>> After all, his semiosic format is actually quite syllogistic, with the
>> major premiss [Representamen] as 'first in line of action/authority',
>> followed by the input from the minor premiss or Dynamic Object
>> data....leading to the conclusion/Interpretant.
>>
>> My point is that this outline of order, and any outline of order such as
>> his order-of-determination [DO-IO-R-II-DI-FI] should not be confused with
>> the modal categories of Firstness, Secondness, Thirdness - which are not
>> ordinal but categorical or descriptive.
>>
>> Edwina
>>
>> On Wed 29/08/18 9:27 AM , Cécile Ménieu-Cosculluela
>> cecile.coscullu...@univ-pau.fr sent:
>>
>> Edwina, Jeff, Stephen, List,
>>
>> I appreciate your answers. Thank you. I'm now wondering why CP 2.254
>> could be interpreted as meaning that Peirce put the interpretant first, as
>> mentioned in Edwina's post that says:
>>
>> In Peirce's ten classes of signs - see 2.254, he actually puts the
>> Interpretant first, followed by the Object, and last - the Representamen!
>>
>> CP 2.254 The three trichotomies of Signs result together in dividing
>> Signs into TEN CLASSES OF SIGNS, of which numerous subdivisions have to be
>> considered. The ten classes are as follows: First: A Qualisign [e.g., a
>> feeling of "red"] is any quality in so far as it is a sign. Since a quality
>> is whatever it is positively in itself, a quality can only denote an object
>> by virtue of some common ingredient or similarity; so that a Qualisign is
>> necessarily an Icon. Further, since a quality is a mere logical
>> possibility, it can only be interpreted as a sign of essence, that is, as a
>> Rheme.
>>
>> Also, it seems to me that the order of semiosic actions does refer to the
>> modal categories (if by "modal categories" we mean the categories of the
>> modes of being of firstness, secondness, and thirdness) so I don't get the
>> point you're making here, Edwina:
>>
>> note, that the terms of First, Second, Third do NOT refer to the modal
>> categories, but to the order of semiosic actions
>>
>> 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
>>
>>
>
>
-----------------------------
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 .
