Robert, Edwina, Jon, List: I'll just thank all three of you simultaneously for your responses, each of which is valuable to me in their own ways.
Also, would like to thank Jon Awbrey as his diagram here has put me in mind of something. Not sure if you'll read this, Jon, but in the process of reading your Conceptual Barriers article at present and was wondering if you could comment on the significance of Buhler and Jakobson in your construction/conception of said schema? I.e., I am speaking of the Organon model which Buhler conceived as bears a slight resemblance to your own work. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/63/Organon-Modell_Workaround.svg Buhler conceives of "Expressive/Representive/Conative" as a triad which Jakobson later doubles, or else enlarges, to encompass the following: 1. referential (contextual information) 2. aesthetic/poetic (auto-reflection) 3. emotive (self-expression) 4. conative (vocative or imperative addressing of receiver) 5. phatic (checking channel working) 6. metalingual (checking code working) https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3e/Roma_jakobson_theory.png [https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3e/Roma_jakobson_theory.png] I.e., your idea that "The connotative aspect includes the references that a sign has to ideas, concepts, intentions, affects, and to the whole realm of an agent’s mental states, broadly encompassing intellectual associations, emotional impressions, and motivational impulses. The connotative dimension of the sign relation embodies the possibility of multiple perspectives" would seem commensurate, if only superficially so, with much of what is contained in Buhler and Jakobson's respective ideas (Awbrey, Susan, and Awbrey Jon 2001: 277-8). Interesting stuff either way. Best Jack ________________________________ From: peirce-l-requ...@list.iupui.edu <peirce-l-requ...@list.iupui.edu> on behalf of Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca> Sent: Thursday, October 7, 2021 8:27 PM To: peirce-l@list.iupui.edu <peirce-l@list.iupui.edu>; jonalanschm...@gmail.com <jonalanschm...@gmail.com> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [PEIRCE-L] Existential Graphs for Triadic Relations (was Peirce & Popper) *Warning* This email originated from outside of Maynooth University's Mail System. Do not reply, click links or open attachments unless you recognise the sender and know the content is safe. JAS, list I wasn't outlining Peirce's EGs [existential graphs] - so there is no need to rush into their defense and point out what you consider my errors. I wasn't dealing with the EGs! I was answering Jack's comment on the Peirce and Popper thread [not an Existential Graph thread]. I was trying to explain to someone who doesn't have an 'image' of the semiosic triad, how to imagize it and see it as a dynamic interactive process - and I consider that my example, which I've used for years [but with a blackboard and lots of chalk] - helps portray what is going on within the semiosic triadic process. And there are indeed three relations - see 8.335 and on , where he indeed talks about 'relations'. Your insistence on the term of 'correlate' doesn't, as I see it, help explain the very active process of information development that is going on. And that is what has to be explained - the active semiosic process that is developing information that is going on at these three sites. My opinion is that the term of 'Representamen' is extremely useful, to separate that mediative process from the WHOLE triad, of O-R-I, which I [and others have as well] term the Sign. And I think that these two - the full triad and the mediating node - have to be clearly differentiated. It's difficult to do that if you use the same term for them!! This thread is not about an insistence on 'I am right' but just 'This is my analysis of Peirce'. You may disagree with me - and you usually do- but, you are, as am I, equal in being 'interpreters' and not Final Authorities of Peirce. Edwina On Thu 07/10/21 2:55 PM , Jon Alan Schmidt jonalanschm...@gmail.com sent: Jack, Edwina, List: ET: Put the dot right at the intersection of the three lines of the Y. In Peirce's EGs, there is no "dot" at the intersection, there is the name of a triadic relation. In his generic examples (CP 1.347, 1903), this is simply a letter--"a," "b," "c," or "d." In semiosis, it is "representing" or "mediating." ET: Now - think of this dot, as the ground site, the attractor site, for THREE Relations. In Peirce's EGs, there are not three relations, there is only one triadic relation that has three correlates. In semiosis, those three correlates are the sign, its object, and its interpretant. ET: Think of a Relation as a kind of connection link between one node and another node. Again, the only relation in each of Peirce's EGs is the one whose name is in the middle. The three lines are not relations, they denote the three correlates of the one triadic relation. A genuine triadic relation, such as representing or mediating, involves the three dyadic relations between its correlates but is not reducible to them. In fact, Peirce's 1903 taxonomy classifies a sign according to the nature of its dyadic relations with its object (icon/index/symbol) and with its interpretant (rheme/dicisign/argument), although there is no separate division for the dyadic relation between the interpretant and the object because it is the same as the dyadic relation between the sign and the object. CSP: 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. (CP 2.242, EP 2:290-291, 1903) Peirce later abandons the term "representamen," having decided that "there was no need of this horrid long word" because the term "sign" is "a wonderful case of an almost popular use of a very broad word in almost the exact sense of the scientific definition" (SS 193, 1905). Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt<http://www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt> - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt<http://twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt> On Thu, Oct 7, 2021 at 12:57 PM Edwina Taborsky < tabor...@primus.ca> wrote: Jack, list Good heavens - A cutting board example! 1] No, the Y shaped format of the Semiosic Sign is irreducible. It's hard to, on a computer, show this. 2] But - take a DOT . Put the dot right at the intersection of the three lines of the Y. Now - think of this dot, as the ground site, the attractor site, for THREE Relations. 3] a Relation is an informational interaction; it carries data. Think of a Relation as a kind of connection link between one node and another node. 4] Now ..look at the Y shape. Right at the centre of those three spokes/Relations....that's the GROUND, that big Dot. [even though I can't show it on this computer]. Notice - there are THREE lines/Relations coming out of that Centre 'dot'. You cannot reduce these three; otherwise, it's not a semiosic sign. 5] The first Relation we'll consider is the vertical one. That's the Representamen in itself. That's a mediating relation; it only functions within the triad. It will be in a mode of 1ns, 2ns, 3ns. Its function is to receive the input data, 'mediate it' according to its stored laws, transform it'...and pass it on to the Interpretant Relation. 6] The next Relation is that between the Representamen and the Dynamic Object. That brings in the input data to that Representamen. Also could be in a mode of 1ns, 2ns, 3ns. [icon, index, symbol] 7] the next Relation is that between the Representamen and the Interpretant node. That relation is the result of the Representamen's mediative actions on the input data. Also could be in a mode of 1ns, 2ns, 3ns. Hope this helps a bit. 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 peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . ► To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message NOT to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with UNSUBSCRIBE PEIRCE-L in the SUBJECT LINE of the message and nothing in the body. More at https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/help/user-signoff.html . ► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary Richmond; and co-managed by him and Ben Udell.
