Jerry- thanks; one of the few times I've laughed out loud at an email. You are
quite right.
Edwina
- Original Message -
From: Jerry Rhee
To: Edwina Taborsky
Cc: Jon Alan Schmidt ; Peirce List
Sent: Saturday, September 17, 2016 7:39 PM
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Relations of
Edwina, list:
You said:
*until that I-O relation does indeed correlate with the R-O Relation? Isn't
this what Peirce meant by eventually arriving at the truth?*
Yes.
So, where is this object?
On this list, it's what Peirce said.
But you said different than what Jon said about what Peirce said.
Jon, list - I know and agree that Peirce uses the term 'determines' and this is
a 19th century usage but Jeff wasn't quoting Peirce in the diagrams. I think
that when one is explaining semiosis, as in Jeff's diagrams, then, one has to
be careful of the modern meaning of the term. Therefore, in
Edwina, List:
ET: I find the use of the term 'determines' problematic. That's because it
suggests, strongly, causality, even an efficient causality.
The term is not Jeff's, it is Peirce's; it even appears in the title of the
specific work that he referenced. It does not entail *causality*,
Jeff, Gary F., List:
GF: That would seem to mean that the Interpretant determines whether the
sign is icon, index or symbol. I don’t see how that could work ...
I was just thinking about how to make this same point. My understanding of
Peirce is that the sign determines the interpretant to
Jeff, I'm sure I must be missing something here, so I'd better take it one
question at a time ...
When you say (iii) that "I determines (O-S)", does that mean that the
Interpretant determines the Object-Sign relation? That would seem to mean
that the Interpretant determines whether the sign is
Jeffrey- thanks for the diagrams - very interesting. I have two comments at
the moment.
1) I find the use of the term 'determines' problematic. That's because it
suggests, strongly, causality, even an efficient causality. I don't think
that the semiosic triad functions in a linear
