[peirce-l] Re: Representamens and Signs (was "Design and Semiotics Revisited" was "Peircean elements")

[Gary Richmond]

Steven. You wrote: I do resist conflating your views with those of Frances - I do observe, however, your strong support for her arguments and the position that she takes. I do not offer "strong support" for Frances arguments nor for "the position that she takes," but as previously mention, I applaud her grappling with the challenge brought about by considering Ben's theory that the analysis of the implications of 'collateral' necessitates a fourth semiotic category of 'recognizant'. She has been criticized here recently in connection with that inquiry, her trying to make some sense of it by rightly or wrongly linking it to a sign/representamen distinction. Now, as you may also recall, I completely reject Ben's 4th category, so that my arguments for Frances has not been for her position but for her right to make it without blanket judgments about her. I am entertaining some of her notions provisionally because it hinted at "a way out" of what is for me something of an impasse. Ben seems to be accepting some, rejecting some of her analysis, but still arguing  for a fourth category. and see something of a "hysteria" in the adoption of triadics in both Peirce and those who later studied him. So are you saying that Peirce's three categories, his trichotomic semeiotic, his more or less trichotomic division of the sciences, etc. represents some sort of hysteria? I would agree with you that these divisions were badly misunderstood & misrepresented by some of his "followers." But folk like John Sowa and Joseph Ransdell have tended to reject these misrepresenters of Peirce (Joe was quite  right imo to question the Morris  connection suggested in one of Frances' recent posts, for example). I have read Ben's remarks on the matter - but I am not clear on what purpose it (a forth) serves or how it is *useful.* Neither am I, Steven, neither am I.. But few so far has been willing to "take Ben on" in this matter, which is certainly no service to him or semiotics. However, Frances has, to some extent, and I wanted to support her interesting abduction (whether or not she is correct ought be a conclusion of the inquiry, not assumed to be decided a priori). Best, Gary --- Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber archive@mail-archive.com