Edwina, List: ET: And besides, I think a big problem is what I see as the confusion between the triadic Sign [made up of three Relations: that between the Representamen and the Object; that between the Representamen and the Interpretant; and that of the Representamen-in-itself]…..with the sign [lower case] which refers only to the Representamen.
The confusion here is claiming that a Sign is "made up of three relations." On the contrary, it is the *first* correlate of a single *triadic relation* in which the Object is the *second* correlate and the Interpretant is the *third* correlate (CP 2.242, EP 2:290; 1903). Note that this is not merely a *terminological* difference, it is a *conceptual* difference. ET: There is no such triadic set as outlined above; that is, the 'sign/representamen' cannot be in a categorical mode of 1ns - while the relation of the R to the I is 3ns and of the R to the O is 2ns. Gary R. was not talking about the "categorical mode" of each trichotomy, he was talking about the *nature* of each correlate *within* the triadic relation among them. As the *first* correlate, there is only *one* division according to the Sign itself; as the *second* correlate, there are *two* divisions according to the Object (Dynamic and Immediate); and as the *third* correlate, there are *three* divisions according to the Interpretant (Final, Dynamic, and Immediate). These are six of the ten trichotomies in Peirce's 1906-1908 taxonomies; the other four are according to the Sign's relations to the *external* correlates, while the Immediate Object and Immediate Interpretant are *internal* to the Sign. Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt On Fri, Mar 29, 2019 at 2:03 PM Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> wrote: > Gary R, list > > I admit to staying strictly out of this recent discussion - for the basic > reason that I'm not interested in terminology - and which term to use at > which time. For me - such an investigation does nothing to advance or > explore the functionality of Peircean semiotics. However - for others, I > acknowledge that others are fascinated by such an exploration. > > [And besides, I think a big problem is what I see as the confusion between > the triadic Sign [made up of three Relations: that between the > Representamen and the Object; that between the Representamen and the > Interpretant; and that of the Representamen-in-itself]…..with the sign > [lower case] which refers only to the Representamen. ] > > But, I must ask Gary R a question. He wrote: > > "IF one sees the three relations of the sign categorially such that the > association of the relation of the sign to its interpretant is categorial > 3ns, to its object is 2ns, and to the sign itself is 1ns " > > I am quite confused by this. There is no such triadic set as outlined > above; that is, the 'sign/representamen' cannot be in a categorical mode of > 1ns - while the relation of the R to the I is 3ns and of the R to the O is > 2ns. There is no such triad. There is only ONE class of triads where the > s/R is in a mode of 1ns - the Rhematic Iconic Qualisign, and here, all > three Relations are in a mode of 1ns. You cannot have that powerful > mediative node/Relation, the Representamen in a mode of 1ns...and yet - > have it somehow produce an Interpretant in a mode of 3ns!! > > So- what am I confusing here? > > Edwina >
----------------------------- 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 .
