Hello Jon S, List,
Does the sign itself constitute a triadic relationship? You say, No. It is the first correlate of a triadic relation, but it is not itself a triadic relation. Let me adopt the other side of the argument and see what points I can marshall in its favor. First, I'd like to point out that any sign that is general in character: (i.e., all legisigns, and therefore all symbols) have the nature of genuine triadic relations. Legisigns have that nature in themselves. Symbolic legisigns have that nature in themselves and in the relation that holds between sign and object. That much follows from the account of genuine triadic relations offered in a number of places, including "The Logic of Mathematics, an attempt to develop my categories from within." Furthermore, consider the following definition of a sign offered in NDTR: A 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, by which triadic relation the possible Interpretant is determined to be the First Correlate of the same triadic relation to the same Object, and for some possible Interpretant. A Sign is a representamen of which some interpretant is a cognition of a mind. Signs are the only representamens that have been much studied. (1903 - C.P. 2.242) Let's separate the clauses: 1. A Representamen is the First Correlate of a triadic relation, 2. the Second Correlate being termed its Object, 3. and the possible Third Correlate being termed its Interpretant, 4. by which triadic relation the possible Interpretant is determined to be the First Correlate of the same triadic relation to the same Object, 5. and for some possible Interpretant. You have focused on the first three clauses. What is implied in the 4th and fifth? For those interpretants that really are general signs in relation to some further object and interpretant, what is the character of such a sign? For the sake of the argument, let's set to the side interpretants that are, in themselves, mere possibles or mere existents. For any interpretant that has a general nature, it will itself be a genuine triadic relation in its nature. Let me ask: why is this important for the sake of offering explanations of how signs and interpretants function in the process of semiosis? As we try to answer this question, let us shift the focus of our attention from the anatomy to the physiology of signs and explain what is essential to their proper functioning. In the process of representation, correlate A functions as a sign in relation to some real interpretant C, where that interpretant C, in turn, serves as a sign in relation to some further object D interpretant E. What does interpretant C represent to E as a sign? For one thing, it represents object B is the same object as D (or B corresponds to D in some way). What is more, Peirce suggests, C represents the relation that A holds to B to interpretant E. C cannot really serve the function of representing such features about A and B to E without itself being genuinely triadic in character. What is more, the kind of genuine triadic relation that interpretant C embodies is not a genuine triadic relation of quality (i.e., what he calls a law of quality) or a genuine triadic relation of fact (i.e., a law of fact). Rather, it is what Peirce calls a thoroughly genuine triadic relation. These sorts of relations are special in that the general character of C, in serving the function of both an interpretant in relation to A and as a sign in relation the further interpretant E, is not a mere law. That is, it is not simply a rule having some sort of generality or some sort of necessity. Rather, as a representamen, C has the character of a living general--one that has life and is capable of growth. This is something that C itself possess as a sign. Thus far, I've argued that all legisigns, and a fortiori, all symbols have the character of being, themselves, genuine triadic relations. What is more, I've argued that all symbolic signs are, in themselves, thoroughly genuine triadic relations. One reason they must have this character is that it is essential for serving, in turn, the function as a symbolic sign in relation to some further object and interpretant. What should we say of signs that are, in their nature, iconic qualisigns (tones) or indexical sinsigns (tokens)? Without arguing the point, I would like to point out that they are always capable of serving as parts of larger inferences. I'll leave it at that. --Jeff Jeffrey Downard Associate Professor Department of Philosophy Northern Arizona University (o) 928 523-8354 ________________________________ From: Jon Alan Schmidt <jonalanschm...@gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, April 14, 2019 11:48:58 AM To: peirce-l@list.iupui.edu Subject: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce Monument List: Surprisingly, the manuscript number in the design documents for the memorial is incorrect--rather than 117, it should be 717, which is undated in the Robin Catalog, but now believed to be from Peirce's 1893 drafts for How to Reason: A Critick of Arguments. The reproduced diagram is on page 9<https://rs.cms.hu-berlin.de/peircearchive/pages/view.php?ref=26185>, which has the quoted heading, "Chapter II. The Categories," and the following accompanying text. CSP: A triad is something more than a congeries of pairs. For example, A gives B to C. Here are three pairs: A parts with B, C receives B, A enriches C. But these three dual facts taken together do not make up the triple fact, which consist[s] in this that A parts with B, C receives B, A enriches C, all in one act. Take another illustration. There is a two-way mode of freedom of a particle on a line from A to B. But if there is a furcation of the line, so that it leads from A to B and C and from B to A and C, there is an essentially different feature. Thus, in triads we must expect to find peculiarities of which pairs give no hint. Note that "triad" here and elsewhere in Peirce's writings clearly designates a kind of relation--one with three correlates. That is why, as several of us have pointed out repeatedly, it is misleading to call the Sign itself a triad; rather, it is the relation of "representing" or "mediating" that is a triad, and the Sign is one of its correlates (A), along with its Object (B) and its Interpretant (C). By contrast, the diagrams in CP 1.347 are from the Lowell Lectures of 1903, and are explicitly intended to be Existential Graphs--which Peirce did not invent until 1897, four years after drawing the diagram in R 717. That is why each has a letter at the Spot in the middle, where the name of the triadic relation would go (e.g., "giving," "representing," or "mediating"), and three Lines of Identity that would be attached to the correlates (e.g., giver, gift, and recipient; or Sign, Object, and Interpretant). Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt<http://www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt> - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt<http://twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt> On Sun, Apr 14, 2019 at 8:51 AM Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca<mailto:tabor...@primus.ca>> wrote: The 'three tails' is also found in The Categories in Detail; 1.347. Edwina On Sun 14/04/19 9:16 AM , Gary Richmond gary.richm...@gmail.com<mailto:gary.richm...@gmail.com> sent: Thanks, Terry. Best, Gary [Blocked image]<http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail> Virus-free. www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail> On Sun, Apr 14, 2019 at 9:12 AM Terry L Rankin <rankin.te...@hotmail.com> wrote: On the memorial website (http://monument.peirce-foundation.org/app/components/peirce-monument/medias/peirces-last-house-27112017-4.png) the engraving appears to be attributed to the 1893 MS117, The Categories, Chapter II. [A screenshot of a cell phone Description automatically generated] Still in One Peace, Terry Rankin rankin.te...@hotmail.com Join the Extinction Rebellion<https://extinctionrebellion.us/> (XR)! Join the XR Orlando Chapter<https://actionnetwork.org/forms/xr-orlando-sign-up-form>! Join the XR Orlando Facebook Group<https://www.facebook.com/groups/XROrlando/>! From: Daniel L Everett <danleveret...@gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, April 14, 2019 8:58 AM To: Gary Richmond <gary.richm...@gmail.com> Cc: Peirce-L <peirce-l@list.iupui.edu>Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce Monument Gary Thanks. I believe you are right about this. I consulted John Sowa also and did my own searches. But if anyone on the list has a precise reference that would be great. Dan On Apr 14, 2019, at 08:45, Gary Richmond <gary.richm...@gmail.com> wrote: Cecile, Dan, list, Cecile asked about the symbol Dan photographed on the Peirce monument at his grave site in Milford: Do you know what the diagram refers to? Does it appear somewhere in Peirce's papers? Do you know where? With a Y to symbolize the sign? And A for the object as if it was first in the semiosis? Dan had asked me the same question off-list. I believe it's simply the 'turnstile'--an icon of any triadic relation, the A, B, C applicable to not only the sign, but to any trichotomic relation, phenomenological of semeiotic. I believe it does appear in Peirce's papers (I've seen it before, for sure) but I have not yet been able to locate the exact source in a quick search. I'm sure some list member will be able to answer your question more specifically and soon. If not, I'll make inquiries at the Peirce mini-conference in Milford this week. Best, Gary Gary Richmond Philosophy and Critical Thinking Communication Studies LaGuardia College of the City University of New York On Sun, Apr 14, 2019 at 6:49 AM Cécile Menieu-Cosculluela <cecile.coscullu...@univ-pau.fr> wrote: Thanks a lot! That's interesting. Do you know what the diagram refers to? Does it appear somewhere in Peirce's papers? Do you know where? With a Y to symbolize the sign? And A for the object as if it was first in the semiosis? Best, Cécile ----- Mail original ----- De: "Daniel L Everett" <danleveret...@gmail.com> À: peirce-l@list.iupui.edu Envoyé: Jeudi 11 Avril 2019 19:39:14 Objet: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce Monument Folks Thought you might want to see the new Peirce monument at the Milford Cemetery. Just visiting in Milford today and tomorrow. Dan [image/jpeg:IMG_2516.jpg] [image/jpeg:IMG_2517.jpg] [image/jpeg:IMG_2518.jpg]
----------------------------- 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 .
