date:20240105

Cecile

I think the spiral is an interesting image of the dynamic nature of the 
semiosic process - The reality of semiosis is as a  transformative process, 
where  energy/matter is constantly being transformed into another form of 
energy/matter, via the mediating Representamen - In other words - it’s not a 
static ‘OK- I’ve got the meaning’ state’; It’s dynamic and transformative. 

I’ve understood this process as a function : f(x)=y. Or…R(O)=I.  The point is, 
to acknowledge the transformative actions of the mediative Representamen within 
the triadic process.

My question to you, however, is how do you introduce, as an image, in this 
spiral, the fact that other triads are affecting each other. That is. If you 
take one triad, with the Y form of 

O  I
   \/
|
 R

Excuse my sloppy image above,  I’m useless at computer drawings...but you get 
the triadic relations…Well, my point is that you can have another triad 
connecting to the O, and another connecting  with the I and the R…..

That is, you can have this Y form….and the Object Relation could be, in another 
triad,  the Interpretant.  The  Interpretant could be moving into becoming 
another R in another triad.

How does one show this complexity?  In my view, it’s the dynamic processing and 
the complexity that is the basis of Peircean semiosis. 

Edwina


> On Jan 5, 2024, at 5:04 PM, Cécile Cosculluela 
>  wrote:
> 
> Edwina, List,
> 
> I appreciate your clarifying comments and I am thankful also for the 
> enriching references that have been shared. Interesting though it might be to 
> distinguish the sign as a representamen (or first correlate of a triadic 
> relation) from the (quasi-)sign (or Sign) as a triadic relation (that 
> includes a first, a second, and a third correlate without whose triadic 
> relation there is no sign), it is useful to me to be able to draw a graphical 
> representation of the sign, and then of the semiosis, i.e. the continuum of 
> signs. I have been using the Y diagram since my doctoral dissertation 
> (http://tinyurl.com/Semiotraductologie) and little by little over the years 
> the Y turned into a spiral. Here are the five steps that stand out (I'm also 
> sending them in an attached document in case the diagrams don't come across 
> well in the email):
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would love to hear what you think about this graphical representation of 
> the triadic sign as a spiral. Please let me know! 
> 
> Best regards, 
> 
> Cécile
> 
> Cécile Cosculluela
> MC anglais UPPA ∗ SSH ∗ LEA
> Maître de Conférences en Etudes Anglophones
> Associate Professor of English as a Second Language
> Semiotics • Linguistics • Grammar • Translation
> 
> 
> De: "Edwina Taborsky"  >
> À: "Cécile Menieu-Cosculluela"  >
> Cc: "Peirce-L" mailto:peirce-l@list.iupui.edu>>
> Envoyé: Vendredi 5 Janvier 2024 21:24:59
> Objet: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Graphical Representations of the Sign by Peirce
> 
> Cecile - I understand the reference by Peirce to a ‘quasi -sign, which is the 
> wider reference to the triadic process, but I think one can talk oneself into 
> a dead end.
>  
> The reality is, from examining the many discussions within Peirce, that the 
> triad, which he refers to as a Sign, [ see Letter to William James 1909 
> 8.305] functions within three relations [in itself, with the object, as the 
> Interpretant] ..That is, the Sign exists as a triadic function. It doesn’t 
> exist except as a triad. 
>  
> Then, you can analytically ’take apart’ this triadic function into 
> Object-Representamen/sign-Interpretant. 
> And you can analyze that mediating process, known as the Representamen or 
> sign….you can analyze it just within itself, all alone [ but it doesn’t exist 
> as such all alone]...within the three modal categories and come up with this 
> representamen/sign as a Qualisign, Sinsign, or Legisign. 
>  
> Then - you can analyze the relations as well within the modal categories.  
> See an outline of the basic ten classes in 2.255 etc.
>  
> ALL of this is, in my view, is just a further analysis of the basic triad, 
> the Sign, “as a triadic form’ [1909].
>  
> But I think it’s a mistake to get trapped in terms.
>  
> Edwina
> 
> On Jan 5, 2024, at 2:56 PM, Cécile Cosculluela 
>  wrote:
> 
> Jon, Edwina, John, List,
> 
> Thanks again. Indeed, I do want to be consistent with Peirce's usage of the 
> term "sign". I think it's interesting to note that "The collocation “triadic 
> sign” isn’t to be found in the CP" (Jappy, 2023, p. 145, note 1). Yet, Peirce 
> mentions, for instance, 'the essentially triadic nature of a Sign' (1906, CP 
> 4.531, p. 415) or points to what might be regarded as the arbitrary character 
> of terminology when stating (in CP 5.473, 1905) that "Whether the 
> interpretant be necessarily a triadic result is a question of words, that is, 
> of how we limit the extension of the term "sign"; but it seems to me [Peirce]

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Graphical Representations of the Sign by Peirce

Cécile:

CC: Yet, Peirce mentions, for instance, 'the essentially triadic nature of
a Sign' (1906, CP 4.531, p. 415) ...

Indeed, a sign is "triadic" in the specific sense that something can only
*serve *as a sign *within *the genuine triadic relation of
representing/mediating between its object and interpretant; and whatever
serves as a *sign *within one such relation might also serve as the
*interpretant
*of a previous sign in another such relation, or as the *object *of a
subsequent sign in yet another such relation. In my view, all these
designations are artifacts of analysis, *entia rationis* that we prescind
from the real and continuous process of semiosis--the entire universe as
one immense sign, a vast argument that is constantly "working out its
conclusions in living realities" (CP 5.119, EP 2:193, 1903).

CC: Does this excerpt from CP 5.473 mean that the term 'sign' refers to the
representamen, and the term "quasi-sign“ refer to the triadic relation of
the representamen to the object for the interpretant?

On the contrary, in that passage, Peirce is actually contrasting a "sign"
that *triadically *produces an interpretant with a "quasi-sign" that
*dyadically
*produces an effect of some kind. In other words, he is suggesting that
"sign" be reserved for the first correlate of a *genuine *triadic relation
and "quasi-sign" be employed instead for the first correlate of a
*degenerate *triadic relation, i.e., one that is *reducible *to its dyadic
input and output relations. His example of the latter is a Jacquard loom,
"which used punched cards to control the weaving of the cloth so that
intricate patterns could be obtained automatically" (EP 2:547n15). As he
says elsewhere ...

CSP: Speculative Grammar ought not to confine its studies to those
conventional signs of which language is composed, but ... will do well to
widen its field of view so as to take into consideration also kinds of
signs which, not being conventional, are not of the nature of language. In
fact, as a point of theory, I am of opinion that we ought not to limit
ourselves to signs but ought to take account of certain objects more or
less analogous to signs. In practice, however, I have paid little attention
to these quasi-signs. (EP 2:257, 1903)

Regards,

Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian
www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt / twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt

On Fri, Jan 5, 2024 at 1:56 PM Cécile Cosculluela <
cecile.coscullu...@univ-pau.fr> wrote:

> Jon, Edwina, John, List,
>
> Thanks again. Indeed, I do want to be consistent with Peirce's usage of
> the term "sign". I think it's interesting to note that "The collocation
> “triadic sign” isn’t to be found in the CP" (Jappy, 2023, p. 145, note 1).
> Yet, Peirce mentions, for instance, 'the essentially triadic nature of a
> Sign' (1906, CP 4.531, p. 415) or points to what might be regarded as the
> arbitrary character of terminology when stating (in CP 5.473, 1905) that
> "Whether the interpretant be necessarily a triadic result is a question of
> words, that is, of how we limit the extension of the term "sign"; but it
> seems to me [Peirce] convenient to make the triadic production of the
> interpretant essential to a "sign," calling the wider concept like a
> Jacquard loom, for example, a "quasi-sign.“ "
>
> Does this excerpt from CP 5.473 mean that the term 'sign' refers to the
> representamen, and the term "quasi-sign“ refer to the triadic relation of
> the representamen to the object for the interpretant?
>
> Best regards,
>
> Cécile
>
> --
> *Cécile Cosculluela*
> MC anglais UPPA ∗ SSH ∗ LEA
> Maître de Conférences en Etudes Anglophones
> *Associate Professor of English as a Second Language*
> *Semiotics • Linguistics • Grammar • Translation*
>
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
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 peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . 
► To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message NOT to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu 
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.

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Graphical Representations of the Sign by Peirce

Cecile - I understand the reference by Peirce to a ‘quasi -sign, which is the 
wider reference to the triadic process, but I think one can talk oneself into a 
dead end.

The reality is, from examining the many discussions within Peirce, that the 
triad, which he refers to as a Sign, [ see Letter to William James 1909 8.305] 
functions within three relations [in itself, with the object, as the 
Interpretant] ..That is, the Sign exists as a triadic function. It doesn’t 
exist except as a triad. 

Then, you can analytically ’take apart’ this triadic function into 
Object-Representamen/sign-Interpretant. 
And you can analyze that mediating process, known as the Representamen or 
sign….you can analyze it just within itself, all alone [ but it doesn’t exist 
as such all alone]...within the three modal categories and come up with this 
representamen/sign as a Qualisign, Sinsign, or Legisign. 

Then - you can analyze the relations as well within the modal categories.  See 
an outline of the basic ten classes in 2.255 etc.

ALL of this is, in my view, is just a further analysis of the basic triad, the 
Sign, “as a triadic form’ [1909].

But I think it’s a mistake to get trapped in terms.

Edwina

> On Jan 5, 2024, at 2:56 PM, Cécile Cosculluela 
>  wrote:
> 
> Jon, Edwina, John, List,
> 
> Thanks again. Indeed, I do want to be consistent with Peirce's usage of the 
> term "sign". I think it's interesting to note that "The collocation “triadic 
> sign” isn’t to be found in the CP" (Jappy, 2023, p. 145, note 1). Yet, Peirce 
> mentions, for instance, 'the essentially triadic nature of a Sign' (1906, CP 
> 4.531, p. 415) or points to what might be regarded as the arbitrary character 
> of terminology when stating (in CP 5.473, 1905) that "Whether the 
> interpretant be necessarily a triadic result is a question of words, that is, 
> of how we limit the extension of the term "sign"; but it seems to me [Peirce] 
> convenient to make the triadic production of the interpretant essential to a 
> "sign," calling the wider concept like a Jacquard loom, for example, a 
> "quasi-sign.“ "
> 
> Does this excerpt from CP 5.473 mean that the term 'sign' refers to the 
> representamen, and the term "quasi-sign“ refer to the triadic relation of the 
> representamen to the object for the interpretant?
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> Cécile
> 
> Cécile Cosculluela
> MC anglais UPPA ∗ SSH ∗ LEA
> Maître de Conférences en Etudes Anglophones
> Associate Professor of English as a Second Language
> Semiotics • Linguistics • Grammar • Translation
> 
> 
> De: "Jon Alan Schmidt" 
> À: "Peirce-L" 
> Envoyé: Vendredi 5 Janvier 2024 20:36:50
> Objet: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Graphical Representations of the Sign by Peirce
> 
> Cécile, List:
> 
> CC: Would it be appropriate to consider that the term 'sign' may actually 
> have two different meanings, referring either to the representamen, or to the 
> triadic relation of the representamen to the object for the interpretant?
> 
> Not if we want to be consistent with Peirce's usage of the term "sign" after 
> a single instance in 1868. For the remaining 56 years of his life, he never 
> used "sign" for the triadic relation, only for its first correlate. Again, 
> the term for the triadic relation is "representing" or (more generally) 
> "mediating."
> 
> For a while, Peirce treated a sign as a certain kind of representamen--one 
> "with a mental interpretant" (CP 2.274, EP 2:273, 1903). However, he 
> ultimately decided that the two terms are synonymous--"there was no need of 
> this horrid long word" [representamen] because "sign" is "a wonderful case of 
> an almost popular use of a very broad word in almost the exact sense of the 
> scientific definition" (SS 193, 1905).
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Jon
> 
> On Fri, Jan 5, 2024 at 1:23 PM Cécile Cosculluela 
> mailto:cecile.coscullu...@univ-pau.fr>> 
> wrote:
>> Jon, Edwina, List,
>> 
>> Thank you for your time and interesting answers. Would it be appropriate to 
>> consider that the term 'sign' may actually have two different meanings, 
>> referring either to the representamen, or to the triadic relation of the 
>> representamen to the object for the interpretant?
>> 
>> Best regards,
>> 
>> Cécile
>> 
>> Cécile Cosculluela
>> MC anglais UPPA ∗ SSH ∗ LEA
>> Maître de Conférences en Etudes Anglophones
>> Associate Professor of English as a Second Language
>> Semiotics • Linguistics • Grammar • Translation
>> 
>> De: "Jon Alan Schmidt" > >
>> À: "Peirce-L" mailto:peirce-l@list.iupui.edu>>
>> Envoyé: Vendredi 5 Janvier 2024 19:09:55
>> Objet: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Graphical Representations of the Sign by Peirce
>> 
>> Cécile, List:
>> 
>> CC: And the sign is a triadic relation. ... Nevertheless, since the sign is 
>> a triadic relation, it is acceptable to represent the sign with the symbol  
>> "Y" (preferably with three branches equally spaced).
>> 
>> No, again, the sign is not a triadic relation--it is the first (simplest) 
>> correlate of the

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Graphical Representations of the Sign by Peirce

Cecile - yes, I think you could come to such a conclusion. That’s why I always 
use ‘representamen’ to refer to the mediative process. And I capitalize the 
term of Sign when I refer to the triad. 

I think it’s important to recognize that the triad is functionally irreducible; 
That is, the Object-Representamen/Sign-Interpretant isn’t made up of three 
separately existing entities - which is why I don’t think one can come up with 
a graph of ‘an object’ or ‘a sign’ or ‘an interpretant’. >There are no such 
separate entities. 

As Peirce said [8.305] “I shall define a Sign and show its triadic form”. That 
seems to me, fairly straightforward - that the Sign has a triadic form!. So- 
yes, when referring to the triad, you can use the term of Sign! 

Then he breaks down this triadic form into parts, “A sign has two objects, its 
object as it is represented and its object in itself’ 8.333. 
My understanding of this - is that the Triadic Sign - functions within the 
relationships of ’two objects correlated to it.

Then - Peirce continues: “It has also three interpretants” [ibid]..and these 
are also part of that whole functional triad of the Sign. 

And Peirce does refer just to that mediating relation, the representamen/sign 
which he refers to “as it is in itself” [8334. That is - just that single 
relation without the interaction with the object[s] and interpretant[s]. 

“A Sign, or Representmen, 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…” EP 2:272. 

“A respresentamen, or sign, is anything which stands, in any respect, at once 
in a relation of correspondence to a correlate, called its object, and to 
another correlate, its interpretant” 1901 MS[R]1147”A sign is an object capable 
of determining in a mind a cognition of an object, called the object of the 
sign. A sign is a species under the genus representamen. A representamen is an 
object A, in such a triadic relation to an objet B, for an objet C’…1903 
MS[R]792:2

“Every sign is in a triad relation to an object and to an interpretant” 1904 
MS[R]L107

My point again, is that the mediating relation [called the sign, the 
representamen] doesn’t exist per se on its own but within a triadic function of 
Object-sign/representamen- Interpretant.  We can analytically explore the 
categorical nature of this mediative relation [ as a Qualisign, Sinsign, 
Legisign] but again - it doesn’t exist on its own but only within the full 
triad, which can also be considered as a Sign….because it functions only within 
relationships!

Edwina

> On Jan 5, 2024, at 2:23 PM, Cécile Cosculluela 
>  wrote:
> 
> Jon, Edwina, List,
> 
> Thank you for your time and interesting answers. Would it be appropriate to 
> consider that the term 'sign' may actually have two different meanings, 
> referring either to the representamen, or to the triadic relation of the 
> representamen to the object for the interpretant?
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> Cécile
> 
> Cécile Cosculluela
> MC anglais UPPA ∗ SSH ∗ LEA
> Maître de Conférences en Etudes Anglophones
> Associate Professor of English as a Second Language
> Semiotics • Linguistics • Grammar • Translation
> 
> 
> De: "Jon Alan Schmidt" 
> À: "Peirce-L" 
> Envoyé: Vendredi 5 Janvier 2024 19:09:55
> Objet: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Graphical Representations of the Sign by Peirce
> 
> Cécile, List:
> 
> CC: And the sign is a triadic relation. ... Nevertheless, since the sign is a 
> triadic relation, it is acceptable to represent the sign with the symbol  "Y" 
> (preferably with three branches equally spaced).
> 
> No, again, the sign is not a triadic relation--it is the first (simplest) 
> correlate of the triadic relation of representing or (more generally) 
> mediating, whose other two correlates are the sign's object and interpretant. 
> As Winfred Noeth correctly summarizes in a 2011 paper 
> (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/254965612_From_Representation_to_Thirdness_and_Representamen_to_Medium_Evolution_of_Peircean_Key_Terms_and_Topics),
>  "Peirce did consider the sign to be a triadic relation, but only in 1868. 
> However, from 1873 onwards, sign, representamen, or representation were 
> synonymously used as the names referring to the first correlate of the 
> triadic relation of semiosis" (p. 455).
> 
> This relation can be represented in Existential Graphs by placing the name 
> "representing" or "mediating" where CP 1.347 shows an individual lowercase 
> letter, with three lines of identity attached to it--one with the name "sign" 
> at the other end, one with the name "object" at the other end, and one with 
> the name "interpretant" at the other end. Equal spacing of the branches is 
> not essential, there just needs to be some convention for where the names of 
> the first/second/third correlates are shown around the perimeter of the name 
> of the relation itself. Hence, these two examples are equivalent.
> 
> 
> 
> R

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Graphical Representations of the Sign by Peirce

Jon, Edwina, John, List, 

Thanks again. Indeed, I do want to be consistent with Peirce's usage of the 
term "sign". I think it's interesting to note that "The collocation “triadic 
sign” isn’t to be found in the CP" (Jappy, 2023, p. 145, note 1). Yet, Peirce 
mentions, for instance, 'the essentially triadic nature of a Sign' (1906, CP 
4.531, p. 415) or points to what might be regarded as the arbitrary character 
of terminology when stating (in CP 5.473, 1905) that "Whether the interpretant 
be necessarily a triadic result is a question of words, that is, of how we 
limit the extension of the term "sign"; but it seems to me [Peirce] convenient 
to make the triadic production of the interpretant essential to a "sign," 
calling the wider concept like a Jacquard loom, for example, a "quasi-sign.“ " 

Does this excerpt from CP 5.473 mean that the term 'sign' refers to the 
representamen, and the term "quasi-sign“ refer to the triadic relation of the 
representamen to the object for the interpretant? 

Best regards, 

Cécile 


Cécile Cosculluela 
MC anglais UPPA ∗ SSH ∗ LEA 
Maître de Conférences en Etudes Anglophones 
Associate Professor of English as a Second Language 
Semiotics • Linguistics • Grammar • Translation 


De: "Jon Alan Schmidt"  
À: "Peirce-L"  
Envoyé: Vendredi 5 Janvier 2024 20:36:50 
Objet: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Graphical Representations of the Sign by Peirce 

Cécile, List: 




CC: Would it be appropriate to consider that the term 'sign' may actually have 
two different meanings, referring either to the representamen, or to the 
triadic relation of the representamen to the object for the interpretant? 




Not if we want to be consistent with Peirce's usage of the term "sign" after a 
single instance in 1868. For the remaining 56 years of his life, he never used 
"sign" for the triadic relation, only for its first correlate. Again, the term 
for the triadic relation is "representing" or (more generally) "mediating." 

For a while, Peirce treated a sign as a certain kind of representamen--one 
"with a mental interpretant" (CP 2.274, EP 2:273, 1903). However, he ultimately 
decided that the two terms are synonymous--"there was no need of this horrid 
long word" [representamen] because "sign" is "a wonderful case of an almost 
popular use of a very broad word in almost the exact sense of the scientific 
definition" (SS 193, 1905). 

Regards, 

Jon 

On Fri, Jan 5, 2024 at 1:23 PM Cécile Cosculluela < [ 
mailto:cecile.coscullu...@univ-pau.fr | cecile.coscullu...@univ-pau.fr ] > 
wrote: 

BQ_BEGIN

Jon, Edwina, List, 

Thank you for your time and interesting answers. Would it be appropriate to 
consider that the term 'sign' may actually have two different meanings, 
referring either to the representamen, or to the triadic relation of the 
representamen to the object for the interpretant? 

Best regards, 

Cécile 


Cécile Cosculluela 
MC anglais UPPA ∗ SSH ∗ LEA 
Maître de Conférences en Etudes Anglophones 
Associate Professor of English as a Second Language 
Semiotics • Linguistics • Grammar • Translation 

De: "Jon Alan Schmidt" < [ mailto:jonalanschm...@gmail.com | 
jonalanschm...@gmail.com ] > 
À: "Peirce-L" < [ mailto:peirce-l@list.iupui.edu | peirce-l@list.iupui.edu ] > 
Envoyé: Vendredi 5 Janvier 2024 19:09:55 
Objet: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Graphical Representations of the Sign by Peirce 

Cécile, List: 


BQ_BEGIN

CC: And the sign is a triadic relation. ... Nevertheless, since the sign is a 
triadic relation, it is acceptable to represent the sign with the symbol "Y" 
(preferably with three branches equally spaced). 

BQ_END


No, again, the sign is not a triadic relation--it is the first (simplest) 
correlate of the triadic relation of representing or (more generally) 
mediating, whose other two correlates are the sign's object and interpretant. 
As Winfred Noeth correctly summarizes in a 2011 paper ( [ 
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/254965612_From_Representation_to_Thirdness_and_Representamen_to_Medium_Evolution_of_Peircean_Key_Terms_and_Topics
 | 
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/254965612_From_Representation_to_Thirdness_and_Representamen_to_Medium_Evolution_of_Peircean_Key_Terms_and_Topics
 ] ), "Peirce did consider the sign to be a triadic relation, but only in 1868. 
However, from 1873 onwards, sign, representamen, or representation were 
synonymously used as the names referring to the first correlate of the triadic 
relation of semiosis" (p. 455). 

This relation can be represented in Existential Graphs by placing the name 
"representing" or "mediating" where CP 1.347 shows an individual lowercase 
letter, with three lines of identity attached to it--one with the name "sign" 
at the other end, one with the name "object" at the other end, and one with the 
name "interpretant" at the other end. Equal spacing of the branches is not 
essential, there just needs to be some convention for where the names of the 
first/second/third correlates are shown around the perimeter of the

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Graphical Representations of the Sign by Peirce

Cécile, List:

CC: Would it be appropriate to consider that the term 'sign' may actually
have two different meanings, referring either to the representamen, or to
the triadic relation of the representamen to the object for the
interpretant?


Not if we want to be consistent with *Peirce's *usage of the term "sign"
after a single instance in 1868. For the remaining 56 years of his
life, he *never
*used "sign" for the triadic relation, *only *for its first correlate.
Again, the term for the triadic relation is "representing" or (more
generally) "mediating."

For a while, Peirce treated a sign as a certain kind of representamen--one
"with a mental interpretant" (CP 2.274, EP 2:273, 1903). However, he
ultimately decided that the two terms are synonymous--"there was no need of
this horrid long word" [representamen] because "sign" is "a wonderful case
of an almost popular use of a very broad word in almost the exact sense of
the scientific definition" (SS 193, 1905).

Regards,

Jon

On Fri, Jan 5, 2024 at 1:23 PM Cécile Cosculluela <
cecile.coscullu...@univ-pau.fr> wrote:

> Jon, Edwina, List,
>
> Thank you for your time and interesting answers. Would it be appropriate
> to consider that the term 'sign' may actually have two different meanings,
> referring either to the representamen, or to the triadic relation of the
> representamen to the object for the interpretant?
>
> Best regards,
>
> Cécile
>
> --
> *Cécile Cosculluela*
> MC anglais UPPA ∗ SSH ∗ LEA
> Maître de Conférences en Etudes Anglophones
> *Associate Professor of English as a Second Language*
> *Semiotics • Linguistics • Grammar • Translation*
> --
> *De: *"Jon Alan Schmidt" 
> *À: *"Peirce-L" 
> *Envoyé: *Vendredi 5 Janvier 2024 19:09:55
> *Objet: *Re: [PEIRCE-L] Graphical Representations of the Sign by Peirce
>
> Cécile, List:
>
> CC: And the sign is a triadic relation. ... Nevertheless, since the sign
> is a triadic relation, it is acceptable to represent the sign with the
> symbol  "Y" (preferably with three branches equally spaced).
>
>
> No, again, the sign is *not *a triadic relation--it is the first
> (simplest) *correlate *of the triadic relation of representing or (more
> generally) mediating, whose other two correlates are the sign's object and
> interpretant. As Winfred Noeth correctly summarizes in a 2011 paper (
> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/254965612_From_Representation_to_Thirdness_and_Representamen_to_Medium_Evolution_of_Peircean_Key_Terms_and_Topics),
> "Peirce did consider the sign to be a triadic relation, but only in 1868.
> However, from 1873 onwards, sign, representamen, or representation were
> synonymously used as the names referring to the first correlate of the
> triadic relation of semiosis" (p. 455).
>
> This relation can be represented in Existential Graphs by placing the name
> "representing" or "mediating" where CP 1.347 shows an individual lowercase
> letter, with three lines of identity attached to it--one with the name
> "sign" at the other end, one with the name "object" at the other end, and
> one with the name "interpretant" at the other end. Equal spacing of the
> branches is not essential, there just needs to be some convention for where
> the names of the first/second/third correlates are shown around the
> perimeter of the name of the relation itself. Hence, these two examples are
> equivalent.
>
> [image: image.png]
>
> Regards,
>
> Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
> Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian
> www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt / twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
>
> On Fri, Jan 5, 2024 at 11:38 AM Cécile Cosculluela <
> cecile.coscullu...@univ-pau.fr> wrote:
>
>> Edwina, Jon, John, & fellow Listers,
>>
>> Thank you for your much appreciated clarifications. It is clear that the
>> oft-shown graph of the sign as a triangle is not appropriate because it
>> represents three dyadic relations, not one triadic one. And the sign is a
>> triadic relation. Peirce used the "Y" symbol" to represent the triad (in CP
>> 1.346 for instance), but he did not explicitly use the "Y" symbol" to
>> represent the sign. (That's what I mean by the phrase "a diagram of the
>> sign". I don't mean a diagram of Peirce's method of defining a sign, or
>> examples of actual instances of marks, tokens, and types. I simply mean a
>> representation / symbol of the triadic concept of sign.) There are actually
>> no graphical representations of the sign in Peirce's texts. Nevertheless,
>> since the sign is a triadic relation, it is acceptable to represent the
>> sign with the symbol  "Y" (preferably with three branches equally spaced).
>> Would you agree that this sums up the general consensus among Peircean
>> scholars on the question of the graphical representation of the sign by
>> Peirce?
>>
>> Thanks for continuing the semiosis of enquiry ...
>>
>> Warm regards,
>>
>> Cécile
>>
>> --
>> *Cécile Coscullue

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Graphical Representations of the Sign by Peirce

2024-01-05 Thread John F Sowa

Jon,

In discussing Peirce's writings, it's important to point out differences and 
developments in his writings over time.  But if Peirce didn't say something 
explicitly, it's important to avoid putting words in his mouth.   The following 
comment you quoted does not cite any statement by Peirce that mentioned "a 
triadic relation of semiosis":

"As Winfred Noeth correctly summarizes in a 2011 paper 
(https://www.researchgate.net/publication/254965612_From_Representation_to_Thirdness_and_Representamen_to_Medium_Evolution_of_Peircean_Key_Terms_and_Topics),
 "Peirce did consider the sign to be a triadic relation, but only in 1868. 
However, from 1873 onwards, sign, representamen, or representation were 
synonymously used as the names referring to the first correlate of the triadic 
relation of semiosis" (p. 455)."

I'm  not saying  that this statement is wrong.  But as far as I know, I 
seriously doubt that Peirce would draw an EG that contained four distinct 
entities:  Sign, Object, Interpretant, and Mediating.  If you wish to draw that 
diagram, you have a right to do so.  But If Peirce never drew an EG in that 
form, then nobody has a right to claim that it is something Peirce might have 
done.

I wouldn't deny you the right to draw that diagram, as long as you admit that 
it is your diagram, not Peirce's.  I would say the same about Ogden and 
Richards's meaning triangle.  It is certainly not a diagram that Peirce drew or 
might have drawn.   It is also totally different from any existential graph.  
But the relationships that O & R described must be interpreted in the terms 
that they used.

John


From: "Jon Alan Schmidt" =

Cécile, List:

CC: And the sign is a triadic relation. ... Nevertheless, since the sign is a 
triadic relation, it is acceptable to represent the sign with the symbol  "Y" 
(preferably with three branches equally spaced).

No, again, the sign is not a triadic relation--it is the first (simplest) 
correlate of the triadic relation of representing or (more generally) 
mediating, whose other two correlates are the sign's object and interpretant. 
As Winfred Noeth correctly summarizes in a 2011 paper 
(https://www.researchgate.net/publication/254965612_From_Representation_to_Thirdness_and_Representamen_to_Medium_Evolution_of_Peircean_Key_Terms_and_Topics),
 "Peirce did consider the sign to be a triadic relation, but only in 1868. 
However, from 1873 onwards, sign, representamen, or representation were 
synonymously used as the names referring to the first correlate of the triadic 
relation of semiosis" (p. 455).

This relation can be represented in Existential Graphs by placing the name 
"representing" or "mediating" where CP 1.347 shows an individual lowercase 
letter, with three lines of identity attached to it--one with the name "sign" 
at the other end, one with the name "object" at the other end, and one with the 
name "interpretant" at the other end. Equal spacing of the branches is not 
essential, there just needs to be some convention for where the names of the 
first/second/third correlates are shown around the perimeter of the name of the 
relation itself. Hence, these two examples are equivalent.

[image.png]

Regards,

Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian
www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt / twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt

On Fri, Jan 5, 2024 at 11:38 AM Cécile Cosculluela 
 wrote:
Edwina, Jon, John, & fellow Listers,

Thank you for your much appreciated clarifications. It is clear that the 
oft-shown graph of the sign as a triangle is not appropriate because it 
represents three dyadic relations, not one triadic one. And the sign is a 
triadic relation. Peirce used the "Y" symbol" to represent the triad (in CP 
1.346 for instance), but he did not explicitly use the "Y" symbol" to represent 
the sign. (That's what I mean by the phrase "a diagram of the sign". I don't 
mean a diagram of Peirce's method of defining a sign, or examples of actual 
instances of marks, tokens, and types. I simply mean a representation / symbol 
of the triadic concept of sign.) There are actually no graphical 
representations of the sign in Peirce's texts. Nevertheless, since the sign is 
a triadic relation, it is acceptable to represent the sign with the symbol  "Y" 
(preferably with three branches equally spaced). Would you agree that this sums 
up the general consensus among Peircean scholars on the question of the 
graphical representation of the sign by Peirce?

Thanks for continuing the semiosis of enquiry ...

Warm regards,

Cécile


Cécile Cosculluela
MC anglais UPPA ∗ SSH ∗ LEA

Maître de Conférences en Etudes Anglophones
Associate Professor of English as a Second Language
Semiotics • Linguistics • Grammar • Translation
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
ARISBE: THE PEIRCE GATEWAY is now at 
https://cspeirce.com  and, just as well, at 
https://www.cspeirce.com .

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Graphical Representations of the Sign by Peirce

Jon, Edwina, List,

Thank you for your time and interesting answers. Would it be appropriate to
consider that the term 'sign' may actually have two different meanings,
referring either to the representamen, or to the triadic relation of the
representamen to the object for the interpretant?

Best regards,

Cécile

Cécile Cosculluela
MC anglais UPPA ∗ SSH ∗ LEA
Maître de Conférences en Etudes Anglophones
Associate Professor of English as a Second Language
Semiotics • Linguistics • Grammar • Translation

De: "Jon Alan Schmidt"
À: "Peirce-L"
Envoyé: Vendredi 5 Janvier 2024 19:09:55
Objet: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Graphical Representations of the Sign by Peirce

Cécile, List:

CC: And the sign is a triadic relation. ... Nevertheless, since the sign is a
triadic relation, it is acceptable to represent the sign with the symbol "Y"
(preferably with three branches equally spaced).

No, again, the sign is not a triadic relation--it is the first (simplest)
correlate of the triadic relation of representing or (more generally)
mediating, whose other two correlates are the sign's object and interpretant.
As Winfred Noeth correctly summarizes in a 2011 paper ( [
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/254965612_From_Representation_to_Thirdness_and_Representamen_to_Medium_Evolution_of_Peircean_Key_Terms_and_Topics
|
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/254965612_From_Representation_to_Thirdness_and_Representamen_to_Medium_Evolution_of_Peircean_Key_Terms_and_Topics
] ), "Peirce did consider the sign to be a triadic relation, but only in 1868.
However, from 1873 onwards, sign, representamen, or representation were
synonymously used as the names referring to the first correlate of the triadic
relation of semiosis" (p. 455).

This relation can be represented in Existential Graphs by placing the name
"representing" or "mediating" where CP 1.347 shows an individual lowercase
letter, with three lines of identity attached to it--one with the name "sign"
at the other end, one with the name "object" at the other end, and one with the
name "interpretant" at the other end. Equal spacing of the branches is not
essential, there just needs to be some convention for where the names of the
first/second/third correlates are shown around the perimeter of the name of the
relation itself. Hence, these two examples are equivalent.

Regards,

Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian
[ http://www.linkedin.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt |
www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt ] / [ http://twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt |
twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt ]

On Fri, Jan 5, 2024 at 11:38 AM Cécile Cosculluela < [
mailto:cecile.coscullu...@univ-pau.fr | cecile.coscullu...@univ-pau.fr ] >
wrote:

BQ_BEGIN

Edwina, Jon, John, & fellow Listers,

Thank you for your much appreciated clarifications. It is clear that the
oft-shown graph of the sign as a triangle is not appropriate because it
represents three dyadic relations, not one triadic one. And the sign is a
triadic relation. Peirce used the "Y" symbol" to represent the triad (in CP
1.346 for instance), but he did not explicitly use the "Y" symbol" to represent
the sign. (That's what I mean by the phrase "a diagram of the sign". I don't
mean a diagram of Peirce's method of defining a sign, or examples of actual
instances of marks, tokens, and types. I simply mean a representation / symbol
of the triadic concept of sign.) There are actually no graphical
representations of the sign in Peirce's texts. Nevertheless, since the sign is
a triadic relation, it is acceptable to represent the sign with the symbol "Y"
(preferably with three branches equally spaced). Would you agree that this sums
up the general consensus among Peircean scholars on the question of the
graphical representation of the sign by Peirce?

Thanks for continuing the semiosis of enquiry ...

Warm regards,

Cécile

BQ_END

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
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 peirce-L@list.iupui.edu .
► To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message NOT to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu
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

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Graphical Representations of the Sign by Peirce

Cécile, List:

CC: And the sign is a triadic relation. ... Nevertheless, since the sign is
a triadic relation, it is acceptable to represent the sign with the symbol
 "Y" (preferably with three branches equally spaced).

No, again, the sign is *not *a triadic relation--it is the first
(simplest) *correlate
*of the triadic relation of representing or (more generally) mediating,
whose other two correlates are the sign's object and interpretant. As
Winfred Noeth correctly summarizes in a 2011 paper (
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/254965612_From_Representation_to_Thirdness_and_Representamen_to_Medium_Evolution_of_Peircean_Key_Terms_and_Topics),
"Peirce did consider the sign to be a triadic relation, but only in 1868.
However, from 1873 onwards, sign, representamen, or representation were
synonymously used as the names referring to the first correlate of the
triadic relation of semiosis" (p. 455).

This relation can be represented in Existential Graphs by placing the name
"representing" or "mediating" where CP 1.347 shows an individual lowercase
letter, with three lines of identity attached to it--one with the name
"sign" at the other end, one with the name "object" at the other end, and
one with the name "interpretant" at the other end. Equal spacing of the
branches is not essential, there just needs to be some convention for where
the names of the first/second/third correlates are shown around the
perimeter of the name of the relation itself. Hence, these two examples are
equivalent.

[image: image.png]

Regards,

Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian
www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt / twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt

On Fri, Jan 5, 2024 at 11:38 AM Cécile Cosculluela <
cecile.coscullu...@univ-pau.fr> wrote:

> Edwina, Jon, John, & fellow Listers,
>
> Thank you for your much appreciated clarifications. It is clear that the
> oft-shown graph of the sign as a triangle is not appropriate because it
> represents three dyadic relations, not one triadic one. And the sign is a
> triadic relation. Peirce used the "Y" symbol" to represent the triad (in CP
> 1.346 for instance), but he did not explicitly use the "Y" symbol" to
> represent the sign. (That's what I mean by the phrase "a diagram of the
> sign". I don't mean a diagram of Peirce's method of defining a sign, or
> examples of actual instances of marks, tokens, and types. I simply mean a
> representation / symbol of the triadic concept of sign.) There are actually
> no graphical representations of the sign in Peirce's texts. Nevertheless,
> since the sign is a triadic relation, it is acceptable to represent the
> sign with the symbol  "Y" (preferably with three branches equally spaced).
> Would you agree that this sums up the general consensus among Peircean
> scholars on the question of the graphical representation of the sign by
> Peirce?
>
> Thanks for continuing the semiosis of enquiry ...
>
> Warm regards,
>
> Cécile
>
> --
> *Cécile Cosculluela*
> MC anglais UPPA ∗ SSH ∗ LEA
> Maître de Conférences en Etudes Anglophones
> *Associate Professor of English as a Second Language*
> *Semiotics • Linguistics • Grammar • Translation*
>
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
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 peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . 
► To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message NOT to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu 
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.

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Graphical Representations of the Sign by Peirce

Cecile - I won’t presume to provide a ‘general consensus’ of how other Peircean 
scholars view the graphical representation of the sign; I’ll speak only for 
myself.

My view - as based within Peirce’s writings - is that there is no such thing as 
a separate ’sign-in-itself’, or a separate object-in-itself- or an 
‘interpretant in itself’. Therefore one cannot even ask for an image of any one 
of these correlates/relations ‘in themselves’….since they don’t exist. That is 
also why I prefer to refer to the mediate sign in the triad 
[Object-Sign-Interpretant] instead as the Representamen [a term also used by 
Peirce for this relation] - to avoid confusion with the term used for the FULL 
TRIAD [Sign].

  The Sign, as used by Peirce, refers to the triadic set of three relations 
which operate as one unit; as a function, so to speak. As he writes, the sign 
is” “anything which determines something else [its interpretant] to refer to an 
object to which itself refers [ its object] in the same way, the interpretant 
becoming in turn a sign, and so on ad infnitum’ "2.303.  

Or “As a medium, the Sign is essentially in a triadic relation, to its Object 
which determines it, and to its Interpretant which it determines. “ [1906; EP 
2.544 [notes].] 

In the above, we can see that Price’s definition of the Sign is always as an 
active function, a triadic function. None of the three relations exist 'per 
se’, by themselves for that would be to deny the action. 

Peirce himself used the image of a Y to show this triad as a ‘graph with three 
tails’.  [1.346-347]

Edwina

> On Jan 5, 2024, at 12:37 PM, Cécile Cosculluela 
>  wrote:
> 
> Edwina, Jon, John, & fellow Listers,
> 
> Thank you for your much appreciated clarifications. It is clear that the 
> oft-shown graph of the sign as a triangle is not appropriate because it 
> represents three dyadic relations, not one triadic one. And the sign is a 
> triadic relation. Peirce used the "Y" symbol" to represent the triad (in CP 
> 1.346 for instance), but he did not explicitly use the "Y" symbol" to 
> represent the sign. (That's what I mean by the phrase "a diagram of the 
> sign". I don't mean a diagram of Peirce's method of defining a sign, or 
> examples of actual instances of marks, tokens, and types. I simply mean a 
> representation / symbol of the triadic concept of sign.) There are actually 
> no graphical representations of the sign in Peirce's texts. Nevertheless, 
> since the sign is a triadic relation, it is acceptable to represent the sign 
> with the symbol  "Y" (preferably with three branches equally spaced). Would 
> you agree that this sums up the general consensus among Peircean scholars on 
> the question of the graphical representation of the sign by Peirce?
> 
> Thanks for continuing the semiosis of enquiry ...
> 
> Warm regards,
> 
> Cécile
> 
> Cécile Cosculluela
> MC anglais UPPA ∗ SSH ∗ LEA
> Maître de Conférences en Etudes Anglophones
> Associate Professor of English as a Second Language
> Semiotics • Linguistics • Grammar • Translation

> 
> De: "Edwina Taborsky" 
> À: "Edwina Taborsky" 
> Cc: "Peirce-L" 
> Envoyé: Vendredi 5 Janvier 2024 16:15:34
> Objet: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Graphical Representations of the Sign by Peirce
> 
> Cecile
> Just to continue with the argument against the triangle as the graphic image 
> of the Peircean sign- one can start with Peirce’s definition of the Sign, 
> which is always a triad, 
> 
> “I..shall define a Sign and show its triadic form” 8.305”A sign therefore is 
> an object which is in relation to its object on the one hand and to an 
> interpretant on the other, in such a way as to bring the interpretant into a 
> relation to the object, corresponding to its own relation to the object” 
> 8.332….and in the next paragraph.. “a sign has two objects…it has also three 
> interpretants’. 8.333.
> 
> “A sign is in a conjoint relation to the thing denoted and to the mind. “…and 
> refers frequently to “the triple relation between the sign, its object and 
> the mind” 3.359-60
> 
> Robert Marty has an extensive outline of Peirce’s definition of the Sign, but 
> it is important to understand that the Sign is made up of three 
> correlates/relations AND - above all that the FORM of this triad is not a 
> closed triangle in itself…which would be utterly useless, but is an open Y 
> shape, enabling networking with other triadic Signs. 
> 
> Edwina
> 
> On Jan 5, 2024, at 9:43 AM, Edwina Taborsky  wrote:
> 
> Cecile
> 
> Understandinig the Sign as a triadic relation, made up of three 
> correlates/relations of Object-Representamen-Interpretant, you will find a 
> good outline of Peirce’s analysis of this triad in 1.345-347.
> 
> As he says “genuine triadic relations can never be built of dyadic relations 
> and of qualities is easily shown…and gives as an example a “node connecting 
> three lines of identity” - with the image of a ‘Y’. 1.346.
> 
> And iin 1.347 - he shows how this Y graph enables networking . That’s a key

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Graphical Representations of the Sign by Peirce

Edwina, Jon, John, & fellow Listers, 

Thank you for your much appreciated clarifications. It is clear that the 
oft-shown graph of the sign as a triangle is not appropriate because it 
represents three dyadic relations, not one triadic one. And the sign is a 
triadic relation. Peirce used the "Y" symbol" to represent the triad (in CP 
1.346 for instance), but he did not explicitly use the "Y" symbol" to represent 
the sign. (That's what I mean by the phrase "a diagram of the sign". I don't 
mean a diagram of Peirce's method of defining a sign, or examples of actual 
instances of marks, tokens, and types. I simply mean a representation / symbol 
of the triadic concept of sign.) There are actually no graphical 
representations of the sign in Peirce's texts. Nevertheless, since the sign is 
a triadic relation , it is acceptable to represent the sign with the symbol "Y" 
(preferably with three branches equally spaced). Would you agree that this sums 
up the general consensus among Peircean scholars on the question of the 
graphical representation of the sign by Peirce? 

Thanks for continuing the semiosis of enquiry ... 

Warm regards, 

Cécile 


Cécile Cosculluela 
MC anglais UPPA ∗ SSH ∗ LEA 
Maître de Conférences en Etudes Anglophones 
Associate Professor of English as a Second Language 
Semiotics • Linguistics • Grammar • Translation 


De: "Edwina Taborsky"  
À: "Edwina Taborsky"  
Cc: "Peirce-L"  
Envoyé: Vendredi 5 Janvier 2024 16:15:34 
Objet: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Graphical Representations of the Sign by Peirce 

Cecile 
Just to continue with the argument against the triangle as the graphic image of 
the Peircean sign- one can start with Peirce’s definition of the Sign, which is 
always a triad, 

“I..shall define a Sign and show its triadic form” 8.305”A sign therefore is an 
object which is in relation to its object on the one hand and to an 
interpretant on the other, in such a way as to bring the interpretant into a 
relation to the object, corresponding to its own relation to the object” 
8.332….and in the next paragraph.. “a sign has two objects…it has also three 
interpretants’. 8.333. 

“A sign is in a conjoint relation to the thing denoted and to the mind. “…and 
refers frequently to “the triple relation between the sign, its object and the 
mind” 3.359-60 

Robert Marty has an extensive outline of Peirce’s definition of the Sign, but 
it is important to understand that the Sign is made up of three 
correlates/relations AND - above all that the FORM of this triad is not a 
closed triangle in itself…which would be utterly useless, but is an open Y 
shape, enabling networking with other triadic Signs. 

Edwina 




On Jan 5, 2024, at 9:43 AM, Edwina Taborsky  wrote: 

Cecile 

Understandinig the Sign as a triadic relation, made up of three 
correlates/relations of Object-Representamen-Interpretant, you will find a good 
outline of Peirce’s analysis of this triad in 1.345-347. 

As he says “genuine triadic relations can never be built of dyadic relations 
and of qualities is easily shown…and gives as an example a “node connecting 
three lines of identity” - with the image of a ‘Y’. 1.346. 

And iin 1.347 - he shows how this Y graph enables networking . That’s a key 
factor in semiosis- that capacity to interact and enable new meanings/ new 
Signs. 

Also - in 4.307-310, he also focuses on the generative capacity of the triad, 
with that ‘Y’ form, and shows how “so prolific is the triad in forms that one 
may conceive of all the variety and multiplicity of the universe springs from 
it” 

The point, again, of the Y-triad graph of the Sign, understood as a form of 
three correlates/relations, is that it is not closed, but open to interaction 
with other triadic Signs. As Peirce also writes, “the most fundamental fact 
about the number three is its generative potency” 4.309. 

And its generative potency can only be be realized if those three relations are 
open to interaction with other triads….which is why the oft-shown graph of the 
Sign as a closed triangle - is so incorrect. 

Edwina 

BQ_BEGIN



BQ_BEGIN

Dear Peirce-Listers, 

I hope this message finds you well. I am currently researching graphical 
representations of the sign in Peirce's texts. If you know of any in his papers 
and can guide me to their location, I would greatly appreciate it. Ideally, a 
link to a manuscript page with a diagram of the sign drawn by Peirce would be 
most helpful. 

Thank you for your consideration and have a great day! 

Best regards, 

Cécile 


Cécile Cosculluela 
MC anglais UPPA ∗ SSH ∗ LEA 
Maître de Conférences en Etudes Anglophones 
Associate Professor of English as a Second Language 
Semiotics • Linguistics • Grammar • Translation 
 



_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 
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 thi

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Graphical Representations of the Sign by Peirce

Cecile
Just to continue with the argument against the triangle as the graphic image of 
the Peircean sign- one can start with Peirce’s definition of the Sign, which is 
always a triad, 

“I..shall define a Sign and show its triadic form” 8.305”A sign therefore is an 
object which is in relation to its object on the one hand and to an 
interpretant on the other, in such a way as to bring the interpretant into a 
relation to the object, corresponding to its own relation to the object” 
8.332….and in the next paragraph.. “a sign has two objects…it has also three 
interpretants’. 8.333.

“A sign is in a conjoint relation to the thing denoted and to the mind. “…and 
refers frequently to “the triple relation between the sign, its object and the 
mind” 3.359-60

Robert Marty has an extensive outline of Peirce’s definition of the Sign, but 
it is important to understand that the Sign is made up of three 
correlates/relations AND - above all that the FORM of this triad is not a 
closed triangle in itself…which would be utterly useless, but is an open Y 
shape, enabling networking with other triadic Signs. 

Edwina

> On Jan 5, 2024, at 9:43 AM, Edwina Taborsky  wrote:
> 
> Cecile
> 
> Understandinig the Sign as a triadic relation, made up of three 
> correlates/relations of Object-Representamen-Interpretant, you will find a 
> good outline of Peirce’s analysis of this triad in 1.345-347.
> 
> As he says “genuine triadic relations can never be built of dyadic relations 
> and of qualities is easily shown…and gives as an example a “node connecting 
> three lines of identity” - with the image of a ‘Y’. 1.346.
> 
> And iin 1.347 - he shows how this Y graph enables networking . That’s a key 
> factor in semiosis- that capacity to interact and enable new meanings/ new 
> Signs.
> 
> Also - in 4.307-310, he also focuses on the generative capacity of the triad, 
> with that ‘Y’ form, and shows how “so prolific is the triad in forms that one 
> may conceive of all the variety and multiplicity of the universe springs from 
> it” 
> 
> The point, again, of the Y-triad graph of the Sign, understood as a form of 
> three correlates/relations, is that it is not closed, but open to interaction 
> with other triadic Signs.  As Peirce also writes, “the most fundamental fact 
> about the number three is its generative potency” 4.309. 
> 
> And its generative potency can only be be realized if those three relations 
> are open to interaction with other triads….which is why the oft-shown graph 
> of the Sign as a closed triangle - is so incorrect.
> 
> Edwina
>> 
>>>  Dear Peirce-Listers,
>>> 
>>> I hope this message finds you well. I am currently researching graphical 
>>> representations of the sign in Peirce's texts. If you know of any in his 
>>> papers and can guide me to their location, I would greatly appreciate it. 
>>> Ideally, a link to a manuscript page with a diagram of the sign drawn by 
>>> Peirce would be most helpful.
>>> 
>>> Thank you for your consideration and have a great day!
>>> 
>>> Best regards,
>>> 
>>> Cécile
>>> 
>>> Cécile Cosculluela
>>> MC anglais UPPA ∗ SSH ∗ LEA
>>> Maître de Conférences en Etudes Anglophones
>>> Associate Professor of English as a Second Language
>>> Semiotics • Linguistics • Grammar • Translation
>>> 
>> _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
>> 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 
>> peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . 
>> ► To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message NOT to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu 
>> 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 peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . 
► To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message NOT to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu 
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.

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Graphical Representations of the Sign by Peirce

2024-01-05 Thread John F Sowa

I agree with Edwina's comments.  And I would add that it's important to ask 
what do you mean by the phrase "a diagram of the sign".   Do you  mean a 
diagram of Peirce's method of defining a sign.  Or do you mean examples of 
actual instances of marks, tokens, and types?

Since anything perceptible can be a mark, there are an infinity of 
possibilities, some of which Peirce mentioned.  The same is true of tokens and 
types.  For examples,  flip the pages of CP, EP, the Logic Notebook, and 
various MSS that may be accessible.

Suggestion:  Find some drawings by Peirce in any of those sources, send copies 
or citations to Peirce L, and ask for opinions about them.

John


From: "Edwina Taborsky" 

Cecile

Understandinig the Sign as a triadic relation, made up of three 
correlates/relations of Object-Representamen-Interpretant, you will find a good 
outline of Peirce’s analysis of this triad in 1.345-347.

As he says “genuine triadic relations can never be built of dyadic relations 
and of qualities is easily shown…and gives as an example a “node connecting 
three lines of identity” - with the image of a ‘Y’. 1.346.

And iin 1.347 - he shows how this Y graph enables networking . That’s a key 
factor in semiosis- that capacity to interact and enable new meanings/ new 
Signs.

Also - in 4.307-310, he also focuses on the generative capacity of the triad, 
with that ‘Y’ form, and shows how “so prolific is the triad in forms that one 
may conceive of all the variety and multiplicity of the universe springs from 
it”

The point, again, of the Y-triad graph of the Sign, understood as a form of 
three correlates/relations, is that it is not closed, but open to interaction 
with other triadic Signs.  As Peirce also writes, “the most fundamental fact 
about the number three is its generative potency” 4.309.

And its generative potency can only be be realized if those three relations are 
open to interaction with other triads….which is why the oft-shown graph of the 
Sign as a closed triangle - is so incorrect.

Edwina

Dear Peirce-Listers,

I hope this message finds you well. I am currently researching graphical 
representations of the sign in Peirce's texts. If you know of any in his papers 
and can guide me to their location, I would greatly appreciate it. Ideally, a 
link to a manuscript page with a diagram of the sign drawn by Peirce would be 
most helpful.

Thank you for your consideration and have a great day!

Best regards,

Cécile
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
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 peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . 
► To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message NOT to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu 
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.

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Graphical Representations of the Sign by Peirce

Cecile

Understandinig the Sign as a triadic relation, made up of three 
correlates/relations of Object-Representamen-Interpretant, you will find a good 
outline of Peirce’s analysis of this triad in 1.345-347.

As he says “genuine triadic relations can never be built of dyadic relations 
and of qualities is easily shown…and gives as an example a “node connecting 
three lines of identity” - with the image of a ‘Y’. 1.346.

And iin 1.347 - he shows how this Y graph enables networking . That’s a key 
factor in semiosis- that capacity to interact and enable new meanings/ new 
Signs.

Also - in 4.307-310, he also focuses on the generative capacity of the triad, 
with that ‘Y’ form, and shows how “so prolific is the triad in forms that one 
may conceive of all the variety and multiplicity of the universe springs from 
it” 

The point, again, of the Y-triad graph of the Sign, understood as a form of 
three correlates/relations, is that it is not closed, but open to interaction 
with other triadic Signs.  As Peirce also writes, “the most fundamental fact 
about the number three is its generative potency” 4.309. 

And its generative potency can only be be realized if those three relations are 
open to interaction with other triads….which is why the oft-shown graph of the 
Sign as a closed triangle - is so incorrect.

Edwina
> 
>>  Dear Peirce-Listers,
>> 
>> I hope this message finds you well. I am currently researching graphical 
>> representations of the sign in Peirce's texts. If you know of any in his 
>> papers and can guide me to their location, I would greatly appreciate it. 
>> Ideally, a link to a manuscript page with a diagram of the sign drawn by 
>> Peirce would be most helpful.
>> 
>> Thank you for your consideration and have a great day!
>> 
>> Best regards,
>> 
>> Cécile
>> 
>> Cécile Cosculluela
>> MC anglais UPPA ∗ SSH ∗ LEA
>> Maître de Conférences en Etudes Anglophones
>> Associate Professor of English as a Second Language
>> Semiotics • Linguistics • Grammar • Translation
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
> 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 peirce-L@list.iupui.edu 
> . 
> ► To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message NOT to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu 
> 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 peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . 
► To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message NOT to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu 
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.

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Graphical Representations of the Sign by Peirce

Cécile, List:

I am not aware of any graphical representations of the sign in Peirce's
texts. You asked a similar question on the List a few years ago, and as I
said back then (
https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/arc/peirce-l/2018-08/msg00280.html), some
scholars *mistakenly *point to the Existential Graphs with three tails in
CP 1.347, or the inverted Y for a triad in CP 4.310, or the triangle for a
triplet in CP 7.426. However, Peirce does not describe *any* of these as
diagrams of a *sign*, which is neither a triadic relation nor a triad nor a
triplet--it is the first (simplest) *correlate *of the triadic
relation of *representing
*or (more generally) *mediating*. As such, it corresponds to one of the
three lines of identity in CP 1.347, while its object and interpretant
correspond to the other two.

Regards,

Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian
www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt / twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt

On Fri, Jan 5, 2024 at 3:45 AM Cécile Cosculluela <
cecile.coscullu...@univ-pau.fr> wrote:

>  Dear Peirce-Listers,
>
> I hope this message finds you well. I am currently researching graphical
> representations of the sign in Peirce's texts. If you know of any in his
> papers and can guide me to their location, I would greatly appreciate it.
> Ideally, a link to a manuscript page with a diagram of the sign drawn by
> Peirce would be most helpful.
>
> Thank you for your consideration and have a great day!
>
> Best regards,
>
> Cécile
>
> --
> *Cécile Cosculluela*
> MC anglais UPPA ∗ SSH ∗ LEA
> Maître de Conférences en Etudes Anglophones
> *Associate Professor of English as a Second Language*
> *Semiotics • Linguistics • Grammar • Translation*
>
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
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 peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . 
► To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message NOT to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu 
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.

[PEIRCE-L] Graphical Representations of the Sign by Peirce