[peirce-l] Re: A sign as First or third...

[Jim Piat]

Jim, List,   I would like to try a comment on the relation between this two quotes: 1. "A _Sign_, or _Representamen_, is a First which stands in such genuine triadic relation to a Second, called its _Object_, as to be capable of determining a Third, called its _Interpretant..." (CP 2.274) and 2. "A sign is a third mediating between the mind addressed and the object represented". (Trichotomic, p. 281 Bref, [ A Sign is a First ] and [ A sign is a third ] as an apparent contradiction.     Dear Claudio,  Folks--   I've omitted the meat and best part of your post for the sake of brevity, but I like your synthesis better than my own one sided insistence that signs are thirds (in the categorical sense).   I look forward to what others make of your suggestions.  But as for me --bravo and thanks.  You've helped me to see the fuller picture that somehow I couldn't seem to grasp.     That said I don't mean to repudiate Jean-Marc's position which I do not think depends upon my insistence that signs were thirds.  But having enough difficulty with my own misunderstandings I'll leave that discussion to Jean-Marc et al.      Cheers, Jim Piat --- Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber archive@mail-archive.com