Gary R, List You can see the references [plural] to the Sign/Representamen as a relation in Robert Marty’s 76 definitions of the sign. Same with the Sign as a triadic relation.
I find that long quotations are tedious to read, but I absolutely accept that I should have provided some support for my comments - I think the reference to Robert Marty’s impressive work ..should suffice. Edwina > On Sep 9, 2024, at 7:24 PM, Gary Richmond <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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] > <mailto:[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] >>> <mailto:[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 >>> <http://twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt> >>> On Sun, Sep 8, 2024 at 8:57 PM Edwina Taborsky <[email protected] >>> <mailto:[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 <https://cspeirce.com/> and, just as well, at >>> https://www.cspeirce.com <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] <mailto:[email protected]> . >>> ► To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message NOT to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] >>> <mailto:[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 <https://cspeirce.com/> and, just as well, at >> https://www.cspeirce.com <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] <mailto:[email protected]> . >> ► To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message NOT to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] >> <mailto:[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.
