Jon, list,
If icon, index, symbol are not classes (of the sign´s object relation), at least they are components of sign classification, so they are a matter of classification, not modality, neither composition.
As I wrote, I find the term "modality" misleading too, so I agree. I rather
Helmut, List:
Icon, Index, and Symbol are not classes; they correspond to the division of
Signs according to only *one *trichotomy, that of the relation between the
Sign and its (Dynamic) Object.
I think that discussing Signs in terms of "modality" is misleading. Again,
each trichotomy is not a
Jon, list,
I also think, that taxonomy, classification, is a different dimension than modality. Of whichever class the object relation is, icon, index, or symbol, in any case the object is, regarding modality, of category 2, and consists of immediate (2.1), and dynamic (2.2) object. In the
Edwina, List:
ET: You seem to be saying that the Object is in a categorical mode of 2ns,
the Representamen in a mode of 1ns, and the Interpretant in 3ns.
Gary R. did not say anything about "categorical modes," and neither did
Peirce. There is a sense in which the Sign corresponds to 1ns, the
Gary R., List:
What evidence is there that Peirce was *deliberately *employing the order
of involution in naming the ten Sign classes of the 1903 taxonomy as he
did? My understanding of involution in this context is that it does not
apply between different correlates or relations, but only
BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}Gary R, list
1] I don't think that because we, as readers, might possibly view
the term of a Rhematic Iconic Qualisign, as two adjectives before a
noun, does not mean that Peirce understood the term in this
Dear list,
This all sounds Relative..
But if one were to ask of the utterer,
“Why do you do what you do? What is the good in it?”,
what would he say?
.. because Peirce? But Peirce is hard.
And let us ask what we mean by calling a thing *hard*.
For What is first for us and what
Jon, Edwina, list,
Jon wrote:
JAS: I find it misleading to say that Peirce "put the Interpretant first"
in CP 2.254. . . As such, the first trichotomy provides the noun in each
of the class names, while the other two trichotomies supply the modifying
adjectives; and it is only because
Edwina, Cecile, List,
Edwina wrote:
1] The 2.242 list of ten classes, which puts the Interpretant, Object and
Representamen relations in that order - is merely a NAME of a type of
semiosic Sign. As for this name representing adjectives before a noun - I
am not aware of any proof of this claim -
Cecile, Edwina, List:
Again, the "order of determination" is a *logical *sequence, not
necessarily a *temporal *one; and Peirce was very clear about the
"directionality" of semiosis.
CSP: For the purpose of this inquiry a Sign may be defined as a Medium for
the communication of a Form ... As a
Cecile, list:
1] The 2.242 list of ten classes, which puts the Interpretant,
Object and Representamen relations in that order - is merely a NAME
of a type of semiosic Sign. As for this name representing adjectives
before a noun - I am not aware of any proof of this claim - and
Edwina, Jon, List,
I too believe that
it is only because adjectives always come /before/ nouns in English
that the S-FI and S-DO terms precede the S term. In another language
(e.g., Spanish) where adjectives can come /after/ the nouns that they
modify, one would presumably refer to a
Edwina, Cecile, List:
I find it misleading to say that Peirce "put the Interpretant first" in CP
2.254. The three trichotomies of his 1903 taxonomy correspond to the
Sign *itself
*as Qualisign/Sinsign/Legisign, the *relation* of the Sign to its (Dynamic)
Object as Icon/Index/Symbol, and the
Cecile, list
I refer to 2.254 - I don't know why his outline puts the
Interpretant, or, Conclusion, first in the 'name' eg a Rhematic
Indexical Sinsign.
After all, his semiosic format is actually quite syllogistic, with
the major premiss [Representamen] as 'first in
Edwina, Jeff, Stephen, List,
I appreciate your answers. Thank you. I'm now wondering why CP 2.254
could be interpreted as meaning that Peirce put the interpretant first,
as mentioned in Edwina's post that says:
In Peirce's ten classes of signs - see 2.254, he actually puts the
Interpretant
Cecile, Edwina, List:
CMC: Since the representamen is the first correlate, isn't it more
consistent to talk about R-O-I ?
As is often the case, it depends on one's *purpose*. R-O-I is indeed how
Peirce presented the three Correlates in certain passages, but O-R-I is the
well-established order
I also think we should be able to acknowledge his work and adapt, change
and derive inspiration from it. I do not accept his notion of universes for
example and I am sure that my triadic notions are at variance with a
literal effort to exegete his various writings. I am sure that accounts in
part
Cecile, list
Yes, I agree that we should all create and be responsible for our
own interpretation of Peirce's work - particularly since both our
expertise and focus are different.
I am aware of Peirce's outline in 2.242, with the "Representamen is
the First Correlate
Edwina, Jon, Jeff, List,
It seems logical that we should all create and be responsible for our
own interpretation of Peirce's work and it is enriching to be able to
discuss together our personal understanding as we keep on thinking it
over, thereby complying with the semiosic law of our
Jeff, List:
As quoted below, Peirce affirmed in CP 2.274 that a relation can be the *Object
*of a Sign, which is obvious since the Object of the word "relation" is a
relation. But where did he ever straightforwardly endorse the notion that
a relation can be a Sign itself? I certainly do not
Edwina, List:
Indeed, our sharp disagreements are well-documented, so I will only offer a
few clarifications.
ET: Many people on this list use 'sign' [lower case] to refer to the
Representamen. I don't - because I consider this confusing.
First of all, most people on this List make no
Jeff, List:
Peirce *did not* "classify signs a[s] thoroughly triadic relations" in "The
Logic of Mathematics"; on the contrary ...
CSP: Indeed, representation necessarily involves a genuine triad. For it
involves a sign, or representamen, of some kind, outward or inward,
mediating between an
Cecile, List:
For some reason, I did not receive the post below directly, only appended
to the replies from others.
As I explained to Helmut in another thread earlier today, according to
Peirce, "Representamen" is either a generalization of "Sign" or synonymous
with "Sign." He initially treated
Verzonden: dinsdag 21 augustus 2018 3:02
Aan: peirce-l@list.iupui.edu [5]
Onderwerp: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Schematic
Representation of the Triad ?
Cecile, Edwina, List:
ey Downard
Associate Professor
Department of Philosophy
Northern Arizona University
(o) 928 523-8354
From: Cécile Ménieu-Cosculluela
Sent: Tuesday, August 21, 2018 2:40 PM
To: peirce-l@list.iupui.edu
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Schematic Representation of
hm...@gmail.com>>
*Verzonden:* dinsdag 21 augustus 2018 3:02
*Aan:* peirce-l@list.iupui.edu <mailto:peirce-l@list.iupui.edu>
*Onderwerp:* Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Schematic Representation of
the Triad ?
Cecile, Edwina, List:
The question asked was whether Peirce ev
interpreting system) that processes a sign to some
> conclusion.
>
>
>
> Signing and giving may not be that different.
>
>
>
> Best, Auke
>
>
>
> *Van:* Jon Alan Schmidt
> *Verzonden:* dinsdag 21 augustus 2018 3:02
> *Aan:* peirce-l@list.iupui.edu
> *Onder
ing may not be that different.
Best, Auke
Van: Jon Alan Schmidt
Verzonden: dinsdag 21 augustus 2018 3:02
Aan: peirce-l@list.iupui.edu
Onderwerp: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Schematic Representation of the Triad ?
Cecile, Edwina, List:
The question asked was whether Peirce e
Cecile, Edwina, List:
The question asked was whether Peirce ever represented a *Sign* as a Y. CP
4.309-310 and 4.317 refer only to a (mathematical) "triad," while CP
1.346-347 is about Existential Graphs with three tails--both of which are
depictions of a *relation*. As I (and others) have
Cecile, list:
Yes, Peirce represented the triadic sign as a Y; [also called the
triple fork] See his discussion in 1.346 where he outlines a 'node
connecting three lines of identity' and the graph and its extensions
in 1.347. He refers to this latter as having 'generative
30 matches
Mail list logo
