[CG] Re: Triadic Relations

BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px; }Jon, list A few comments on your outline of the Sign. I think one has to be careful not to set up a Saussurian linguistic dyad. I refer you to Robert Marty's '76 definitions of the Sign' - which are quotes from Peirce's work. I'll refer to several of them: "Genuine mediation is the character of a Sign. A sign is anything which is related to a Second thing, its Object, in respect to a Quality, in such a way as to bring a Third thing, its Interpretant, into relation to the same Object.....1902. 2.92 And '"A definition of a sign will be given which no more refers to human though that does the definition of a line as the place which a particle occupies, part by part, during a lapse of time. 1902. NEW IV pp 20-2 And 'Every sign stands for an object independent of itself, but it can only be a sign of that object in so far as that object is itself of the nature of a sign or thought. 1903. CP 1-53 "A sign is plainly a species of medium of communication' 1905. MS283 p 125 "Signs ...are triadic" 1909 6.344 "A sign is an object which stands for another to some mind" I have several points. First - Peirce uses both the term 'Representamen' for this mediative process - as well as the term 'sign'. Second- He also understands the 'sign' as a complete triadic process such that this irreducible triad can be considered an existential entity. That is, the full triad, the Sign, has three correlates or relational parts: ;that in itself, that with the object; and that with the interpretant. A full active triad, in my view, can be understood in many ways: I'd consider a cell as a full active triad, and thus, as both a Sign [the triad] and engaged in that triadic mediative process using the internal representamen/sign to carry out this mediation. Edwina On Wed 01/12/21 11:45 AM , Jon Awbrey jawbrey(a)att.net sent: Cf: Triadic Relations • 3 https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2021/11/08/triadic-relations-3/ [1] Examples from Semiotics ======================= The study of signs — the full variety of significant forms of expression — in relation to all the affairs signs are significant “of”, and in relation to all the beings signs are significant “to”, is known as “semiotics” or the theory of signs. As described, semiotics treats of a 3-place relation among signs, their objects, and their interpreters. The term “semiosis” refers to any activity or process involving signs. Studies of semiosis focusing on its abstract form are not concerned with every concrete detail of the entities acting as signs, as objects, or as agents of semiosis, but only with the most salient patterns of relationship among those three roles. In particular, the formal theory of signs does not consider all the properties of the interpretive agent but only the more striking features of the impressions signs make on a representative interpreter. From a formal point of view this impactor influence may be treated as just another sign, called the “interpretant sign”, or the “interpretant” for short. A triadic relation of this type, among objects, signs, and interpretants, is called a “sign relation”. For example, consider the aspects of sign use involved when two people, say Ann and Bob, use their own proper names, “Ann” and “Bob”, along with the pronouns, “I” and “you”, to refer to themselves and each other. For brevity, these four signs may be abbreviated to the set {“A”, “B”, “i”, “u”}. The abstract consideration of how A and B use this set of signs leads to the contemplation of a pair of triadic relations, the sign relations L_A and L_B, reflecting the differential use of these signs by A and B, respectively. Each of the sign relations L_A and L_B consists of eight triples of the form (x, y, z), where the “object” x belongs to the “object domain” O = {A, B}, the “sign” y belongs to the “sign domain” S, the “interpretant sign” z belongs to the “interpretant domain” I, and where it happens in this case that S = I = {“A”, “B”, “i”, “u”}. The union S ∪ I is often referred to as the “syntactic domain”, but in this case S = I = S ∪ I. The set-up so far is summarized as follows: • L_A, L_B ⊆ O × S × I • O = {A, B} • S = {“A”, “B”, “i”, “u”} • I = {“A”, “B”, “i”, “u”} The relation L_A is the following set of eight triples in O × S × I. • { (A, “A”, “A”), (A, “A”, “i”), (A, “i”, “A”), (A, “i”, “i”), (B, “B”, “B”), (B, “B”, “u”), (B, “u”, “B”), (B, “u”, “u”) } The triples in L_A represent the way interpreter A uses signs. For example, the presence of (B, “u”, “B”) in L_A says A uses “B” to mean the same thing A uses “u” to mean, namely, B. The relation L_B is the following set of eight triples in O × S × I. • { (A, “A”, “A”), (A, “A”, “u”), (A, “u”, “A”), (A, “u”, “u”), (B, “B”, “B”), (B, “B”, “i”), (B, “i”, “B”), (B, “i”, “i”) } The triples in L_B represent the way interpreter B uses signs. For example, the presence of (B, “i”, “B”) in L_B says B uses “B” to mean the same thing B uses “i” to mean, namely, B. The triples in the relations L_A and L_B are conveniently arranged in the form of relational data tables, as shown below. Table A. L_A = Sign Relation of Interpreter A https://inquiryintoinquiry.files.wordpress.com/2020/05/sign-relation-la-int… [2] Table B. L_B = Sign Relation of Interpreter B https://inquiryintoinquiry.files.wordpress.com/2020/05/sign-relation-lb-int… [3] Resources ========= Survey of Relation Theory https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2021/11/08/survey-of-relation-theory-5/ [4] Survey of Semiotics, Semiosis, Sign Relations https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2019/10/29/survey-of-semiotics-semiosis-sign… [5] Regards, Jon _______________________________________________ CG mailing list -- cg(a)lists.iccs-conference.org [6] To unsubscribe send an email to cg-leave(a)lists.iccs-conference.org [7] Links: ------ [1] http://webmail.primus.ca/parse.php?redirect=https%3A%2F%2Finquiryintoinquir… [2] http://webmail.primus.ca/parse.php?redirect=https%3A%2F%2Finquiryintoinquir… [3] http://webmail.primus.ca/parse.php?redirect=https%3A%2F%2Finquiryintoinquir… [4] http://webmail.primus.ca/parse.php?redirect=https%3A%2F%2Finquiryintoinquir… [5] http://webmail.primus.ca/parse.php?redirect=https%3A%2F%2Finquiryintoinquir… [6] http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'cg@lists.iccs-con… [7] http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'cg-leave@lists.ic…