Edwina, Jon, List, It would be helpful, Edwina, if you would add a quotation in support of each of your points 1 and 2.
But as you wrote (emphasis added by me). . . 1] Peirce *constantly* refers to the sign/representamen as a relation and as an action of mediation. 2] Peirce *often* refers to the triadic relations as a Sign. . . . on further reflection, I think it would be immensely helpful if you quoted Peirce more than once for each of these points. List: I have found using the search function (Control + F) of the online CP very helpful and time saving in looking for particular quotations, especially when I'm pressed for time. https://colorysemiotica.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/peirce-collectedpapers.pdf I hope, and I supposed that I have for long assumed that List members knew of this source (and several others now online, such as volume 2 of *The Essential Peirce*) Best, Gary R On Mon, Sep 9, 2024 at 7:01 PM Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> wrote: > JAS, list > > As usual, we’ll have to continue to disagree. > > 1] Peirce constantly refers to the sign/representamen as a relation and as > an action of mediation. > > 2] Peirce often refers to the triadic relations as a Sign. > > 3] As for his comment that terminology can make little difference - I > disagree with you that this refers only to the three categories. > > 4] I have never said that the Real Object is connected to the sign. I > never said that this Real Object was ‘the object of a sign. ..and would > appreciate your not declaring that I said this. > > I specifically said, several times, that this Real object is OUTSIDE of > the semiosic process. “There are real things, whose characters are > entirely independent of our opinions about them, 5.384. When these Reals > are moved into a semiotic interaction, they then can be understood as > Dynamic Objects. See Peirce’s explanation of the weather - where he > differentiates between this object..and the dynamic object. ...which > reference I have previously provided. 8.314. > > Our disagreements continue. > > Edwina > > > > On Sep 9, 2024, at 6:25 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt <[email protected]> > wrote: > > 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 > <http://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. > > > _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ > 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.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 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.
