Helmut, Edwina, List: I personally find it misleading to say that the dynamical object does not *exist *on its own, because this wrongly implies that it *requires *a sign to represent it in order to exist. On the contrary, the dependence is the other way around--a sign has no being on its own, but must be determined by a dynamical object. On the other hand, I acknowledge that something does not *function *as a dynamical object unless and until it determines a sign to represent it.
I also personally find it misleading to say that a sign is *composed *of a sign, an object, and an interpretant. Again, these are three distinct *correlates *of a genuine triadic relation, not three parts of a single whole. Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt On Sun, Apr 26, 2020 at 11:03 AM Helmut Raulien <[email protected]> wrote: > Supplement: And if you ask: "What does a rhematic iconic qualisign consist > of?", and the answer is "Rheme, icon, and qualisign", you might argue that > now you are talking about a composition, but effectively the way of > composition applies to all signs, so you really are talking about a special > kind of this general composition, so about a class of composition, so about > a class. > Edwina, List, > > I think, if yoiu ask: "What kind of sign is it?", then you might get the > answer: "A Qualisign", you regard the sign as class now, and in this > respect there is no triadicity (but mostly degenerateness). But if you ask: > "What is a sign (better: Sign or Sign triad) composed of?", then you get > the answer: "Sign, object, interpretant", or "Sign itself (aka > sign-sign-relation), sign-object-relation, and sign-interpretant relation", > and you are talking about a composition. If you ask: "How many sign classes > are there?", and the answer is "10", you are talking about a complete > group, which is a composition. > > Best, > Helmut > 26. April 2020 um 17:32 Uhr > "Edwina Taborsky" <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Helmut - Could you explain to me the difference between a Qualisign, which > in a specific instance, is a 'feeling of heat' as a 'composition' vs a > 'class' of such instances? Isn't the composition of this particular example > - the same as it is in the 'class'? > > I am aware that a 'class' would refer to ALL such instances where all > three relations in the triad are in the category of Firstness, but, why do > you seem to infer that ONE example of such a class means that one can't > 'assign all three categorical modes'. > > Sorry- but you've lost me on this! > > Edwina > > On Sun 26/04/20 11:22 AM , "Helmut Raulien" [email protected] sent: > > Edwina, List, > > sorry for my overlapping posts. I think for assigning all three categorial > modes from a triad, this only works with compositions, not with classes. > "rhematic iconic qualisign" is a class, 1-1-1. It is a class of a > composition, but a class. A class is not a categorial triad. The groups of > 10, 28, and 66 sign classes are compositions of classes of compositions, so > compositions, and the complete triadicity applies to them (to these > groups). "S-O-I" too is a composition, also "SS-SO-SI". To both the > complete triadicity applies, due to the level consisting of 3, 6, 10, > 15,...28...66... completely triadically arranged characters. > > Best, > Helmut > 26. April 2020 um 17:02 Uhr > "Edwina Taborsky" > wrote: > > Helmut - no, in my view, the object - which to be accurate, should better > be referred to as the DO [Dynamic Object] when it's in the triad - doesn't > exist 'per se' - on its own. > > It only 'exists' within that triadic interaction - and its nature when > 'grabbed' so to speak, in that interaction is to provide input data which > is transformed/mediated by the Representamen/sign and thus 'interpreted' as > an Interpretant. > > So- what is the categorical mode of the relation between the DO and the R? > We see from the ten classes that it can be in any of the three modal > categories. Three of the ten have the input from the DO in a mode of > Firstness; four are in a mode of Secondness and three in a mode of > Thirdness. That is - the interaction between the Representamen and the DO > can lose data! > > So, for example, in a Qualisign, where the relation between R and DO is in > a mode of Firstness - and the result is a 'feeling of heat'.....this > particular triad hasn't picked up that the feeling of heat comes from a > red-hot stove burner. > > 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 .
