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

[Jim Piat]

Gary Richmond wrote:   >>So, finally,  is a sign a First or a Third? It seems to me at this point in my reflection that it functions as both, transmuting itself as the sign grows in the continuation of a semiotic process.>> Gary Dear Gary, Folks--   Yes, Gary,  what you say in the above post seems corrrect to me in so far as my present understanding of this complex issue goes.  Now,  if we allow that even an object (if taken as part of triad of objects) can serve as a first or third I think we have come full circle and in some sense also merged with the position put forth by Jean-Marc.   Could it be that Peirce's classifications of signs accommodates (my word for the day) both points of view --   The key being (in my view) that to serve as a first (quality or monad), second (object or dyad) or third (mediator or triad) is to function (or be construed/interpreted as functioning) in a specific relational way.   IOWs all are signs and our discussions of objects, first and thirds (as well as categories verses ordinal positions) arise from our prescissions not from the givens.      What makes thought possible (including all the nesting and reframing of ideas) is the fact that all is thought.  We begin with thought.   We swim in a continuum of thought and are ourselves thought.  Slice it however you want it comes out an irreducible triad of form, substance and function.    Maybe ...   Thanks for sticking with me in this discussion. For me it has at times been a bit frustrating but even more so it has also been extremely helpful.  For the record, I conclude  that I was wrong or at best had a very limited understanding of the issues.  Still limited,  but better than before.   Thanks to all, Jim Piat --- Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber archive@mail-archive.com