List: There was no *ad hominem* in my previous post--I made no argument directed against a person instead of a position. Sarcasm is difficult to convey in written communication, and I honestly did not detect it in the original reference to "the ignorant and uneducated reader"; in fact, I still do not see it.
Context is always important for interpreting and applying any quotation, whether of Peirce or of someone else. CSP: Even without Kant's categories, the recurrence of triads in logic was quite marked, and must be the croppings out of some fundamental conceptions. I now undertook to ascertain what the conceptions were. This search resulted in what I call my categories. I then [in 1867] named them Quality, Relation, and Representation. But I was not then aware that undecomposable relations may necessarily require more subjects than two; for this reason *Reaction *is a better term. Moreover, I did not then know enough about language to see that to attempt to make the word *representation *serve for an idea so much more general than any it habitually carried, was injudicious. The word *mediation *would be better. Quality, reaction, and mediation will do. But for scientific terms, 1ns, 2ns, and 3ns, are to be preferred as being entirely new words without any false associations whatever. How the conceptions are *named *makes, however, little difference. (CP 4.3 [not 4.4], 1898) Peirce does not say that how *conceptions in general* are named makes little difference, he says that how *his three categories* are named makes little difference--despite having just recounted why he ultimately preferred 1ns/2ns/3ns over quality/reaction/mediation, and why he came to prefer these names over quality/relation/representation. Moreover, only five years later, he apparently changes his mind and reaffirms, "When you strive to get the purest conceptions you can of 1ns, 2ns, and 3ns, thinking of quality, reaction, and mediation ..." (CP 1.530, 1903). He also spells out a rigorous ethics of terminology (CP 2.219-226, EP 2:263-266, 1903) in which he asserts that maintaining *consistent *names for *philosophical *conceptions is *extremely *important. Again, the sign *itself* is not a "triad" nor a "mediating relation," and Peirce never refers to it using either of these terms--not in *any *of the 76 definitions that Robert Marty collected ( https://cspeirce.com/rsources/76defs/76defs.htm), with which I am quite familiar. Instead, the genuine triadic relation is *representing *or (more generally) *mediating*--the sign (first correlate) represents its object (second correlate) for its interpretant (third correlate); the sign (first correlate) mediates between its object (second correlate) and its interpretant (third correlate). Again, the "real object" of a sign that has one is its *dynamical *object, not some third object. Any other "real object" is not an object *of the sign* being analyzed *at all*. I will address the questions below about the universe as a sign in the thread about my paper. Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt / twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt On Sun, Sep 8, 2024 at 8:57 PM Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> wrote: > JAs, list > > I don’t think it’s the time to move into ad hominem. My comment about > ‘ignorance and uneducted’ was sarcastic - and I’m sure you know that. And I > certainly don’t assume that everyone in academia knows the function of > ’square brackets’ [ I use them all the time because they are easier to use > on the keyboard]. But- even so - one should explain wHY one added a term > in ’squad brackets’. That’s the real issue. > > I don’t agree that using different terms from Peirce tends to ’signify > different concepts from Peirce’s own’. That would assume that a concept can > only be expressed in ONE term and that term alone.I don’t think this is a > valid conclusion. As Peirce himself said ‘How the conceptions are named > makes, however, little difference [ 4.4]. After all - Peirce’s semiosis IS > about information processing! What do you think is going on when a dog > smells a scent, and interprets it - other than ‘information processing? > As for ’node - I consider it a valid interpretation of the correlates; a > ’node’ is a site for a network connection; it is a connection site in a > communication network.- and in my view, that is exactly what is going on > within the various correlates/elations. > > Peirce himself refers to the sign as other the full triad or the > mediating relation. And he certainly refers to the ‘mediating relation’ as > just that. ..and NOT just ’the first correlate’. [ Read Robert Marty’s 76 > definitions of the Sign]. > > As for the Dynamic and Immediate Objects - these are both operative within > the semiotic process. I am referring to the Real Object [ and I provided > quotations from peirce] both in his comments about the weather and > elsewhere, as to the reality of this ’Third object’ = which is outside of > ones own semiotic interaction..but.. ‘real objects exist in the world.. > > I disagree with your view of the Peirean universe. I do see an > inconsistency with the universe as only the mediate sign/representamen [ > but can certainly see it as, Peirce concluded in that section, as an > Argument, which is triadic, and operative as multiple triadic signs. . My > concern is that, with your view that the Universe as a Sign, has its > Dynamic Object external to it - you have set up the Universe as spatially > finite, with boundaries. I see no mention of a bounded universe in Peirce. > And, that would also mean that the Dynamic Interpretant would also be > ‘outside of theUniverse. Again - is there any reference to this in Peirce? > > Edwina >
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ARISBE: THE PEIRCE GATEWAY is now at https://cspeirce.com and, just as well, at https://www.cspeirce.com . It'll take a while to repair / update all the links! ► 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 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.
