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

[Gary Richmond]

Jean-Marc Orliaguet wrote: PS: this is a detail, but you probably meant "genuine triadic relationship" instead of "genuine trichotomic relationship" ("trichotomic" means something that divides something into 3 parts, while "genuinely triadic" means something that connects three things into one) No, I meant trichotomic as Peirce uses it in such works as Trichotomic and A Guess at the Riddle. I mean it exactly as Peirce uses it. Jean-Marc, as did Ben earlier, I feel the game is over. But thank you again for helping to provide the opportunity to think these matters through. Gary Gary Richmond wrote: Jean-Marc, List, Please see my most recent post addressed to Jim for what should serve as a response to your question. My argument there in a nutshell is that in a genuine trichotomic relationship all elements do in one sense mediate between the others and even necessarily so or it would not be a genuine trichotomic relationship; but as soon as one begins to take into consideration categorial associations in some context, then a particular order (one of six possible ones, which I call trikonic vectors following Parmentier)   matters, both as to categorial association and their logical and/or temporal movement. However there are frequently several orders (vectors) of possible importance once could consider. this is impossible: if only the sign mediates between the object and the interpretant then the relation is by definition not a genuine triadic relation. It will be degenerate, it is quite clear in the following text: 1.274 A Sign, or Representamen, is a First which stands in such a genuine triadic relation to a Second, called its Object, as to be capable of determining a Third, called its Interpretant, to assume the same triadic relation to its Object in which it stands itself to the same Object. The triadic relation is genuine, that is its three members are bound together by it in a way that does not consist in any complexus of dyadic relations. That is the reason the Interpretant, or Third, cannot stand in a mere dyadic relation to the Object, but must stand in such a relation to it as the Representamen itself does. this is true of signs "in context" with all the determinations you like. PS: this is a detail, but you probably meant "genuine triadic relationship" instead of "genuine trichotomic relationship" ("trichotomic" means something that divides something into 3 parts, while "genuinely triadic" means something that connects three things into one) /JM --- Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber archive@mail-archive.com