Gary F., List:
It sounds like we are more or less on the same page regarding the
continuity of semeiosis in general, and of interpreter and interpretant in
particular. Every proposition--including "a sign mediates between its
object and its interpretant," which can be expressed with the "tripod"
BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}List
Thanks to Robert Marty for both the list of the 76 definitions of
the sign - and - for the diagram of the dynamics of the semiosic
process. It's very clear in that diagram how the triadic process
functions
List,
The difference between mediation and relation rings a bell to me. There are two kinds of relation: Relatio rationalis and relatio naturalis. Relatio rationalis is a by a mind supposed relation, without the need of both parts actually to take part, or communicate with each other. Relatio
Cf: Sign Relations • Denotation
http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2020/06/23/sign-relations-%e2%80%a2-denotation/
One aspect of a sign's complete meaning concerns the reference a sign has to its objects, which objects are collectively
known as the “denotation” of the sign. In the pragmatic theory
Jon, sorry, I meant to reply to your final paragraph but got distracted. (New
rule: never try to compose a post while you have a chatty 6-year-old bouncing
around you.) I also fixed an omission in my post below.
JAS: I agree, but I believe that we must still carefully distinguish an
Jon, sorry, I meant to reply to your final paragraph but got distracted. (New
rule: never try to compose a post while you have a chatty 6-year-old bouncing
around you.) I also fixed an omission in my post below.
From: g...@gnusystems.ca
Sent: 23-Jun-20 08:26
To:
Jon, list,
I decided to change the subject line, as we’re not really talking about
communication here.
JAS: In CP 1.345-347 (1903), Peirce is talking about genuine triadic relations,
and "representing" or (more generally) "mediating" is just such a relation with
three subjects--the sign, its
