Jon, lists, Jon wrote: "When we say the interpretant stands in a relation to the object and the sign stands in a relation to the object and that those two relations are the same, then the relation we are talking about is simply the triadic sign relation in question."
I might tend to agree with this except for your writing that teridentity is "*simply* the *triadic *sign relation in question" (emphasis added). It seems to me that there is much more to say about teridenity in consideration of semiotis than you have suggested in your message. For example, Helmut Pape extends the idea of teridentity within a tri-categorial, specifically semiotic context in this article in the anthology, *The Rule of Reason*. See these passages in particular: http://books.google.com/books?id=SKnhycytpCsC&pg=PA166&lpg=PA166&dq=teridentity+peirce&source=bl&ots=3sqWTk1JED&sig=8wFQsZm1FieEKIqMSkTHWGkYeBs&hl=en&sa=X&ei=-8IVVO_-D5f-yQSKx4DQBg&ved=0CCsQ6AEwAjgK#v=onepage&q=teridentity%20peirce&f=false As I see it, and as seemed to be the conclusion of at least some of the participants in a discussion of teridentity on peirce-l about a dozen years or so ago, there is nothing "simple" about teridentity in consideration of semiosis, because the 'triadic' relation also involves a categorial 'trichotomic' (as Peirce uses that term from at least the time of such articles as "One, Two, Three," "TRICHOTOMIC," and "A Guess at the Riddle"). In a word, it is my understanding that Peirce does not reduce a *genuine trichotomic relation* to a mere triadic relationship in the mathematical sense. For this reason I cannot agree that in the context of genuine tri-categorial relations (such as o-s-i) that a teridentity relation is *merely* the triadic extension of an identity relation (the Peirce quotes in Pape's article are especially illuminating in this regard). Principally, such an abstract reduction would seem to minimize the teleological tendency of semiosis. But perhaps I have misunderstood you. Best, Gary *Gary Richmond* *Philosophy and Critical Thinking* *Communication Studies* *LaGuardia College of the City University of New York* *C 745* *718 482-5690* On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 11:22 PM, Jon Awbrey <[email protected]> wrote: > Re: Gary Richmond > At: http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/14086 > > Gary, > > A teridentity relation is the triadic extension of a simple identity > relation. > > For example, suppose our object domain is the set O = {0, 1, 2, 3, 4}. > > The identity relation on O is the following set of ordered pairs: > > * {(0,0), (1,1), (2,2), (3,3), (4,4)} > > Alternatively, the aggregate may be written in the style Peirce used early > on: > > * 0:0 + 1:1 + 2:2 + 3:3 + 4:4 > > The teridentity relation on O is the following set of ordered triples: > > * {(0,0,0), (1,1,1), (2,2,2), (3,3,3), (4,4,4)} > > Alternatively: > > * 0:0:0 + 1:1:1 + 2:2:2 + 3:3:3 + 4:4:4 > > When we say the interpretant stands in a relation to the object and the > sign stands in a relation to the object and that those two relations are > the same, then the relation we are talking about is simply the triadic sign > relation in question. > > Regards, > > Jon > > Gary Richmond wrote: > > Edwina, John, > > > > I will, as ever, agree with John in this matter. If, as Peirce says, the > > interpretant stands in the *same *relation to the object as the > > representamen does, then that 'same' points to what in existential graphs > > Peirce calls a relationship of 'teridentity'. For example, he writes: > > > > the recognition of the demonstrable logical truth that the concept of > > teridentity is not mere identity. It is identity and identity, but this > > "and" is a distinct concept, and is precisely that of teridentity. CSP > > > > I'm still traveling and, so away from my desk, but as I recall Peirce > holds > > that this relationship of teridentity holds for all genuine triadic > > relations of which o-s-i is certainly one. > > > > Best, > > > > Gary > > > > -- > > academia: http://independent.academia.edu/JonAwbrey > my word press blog: http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/ > inquiry list: http://stderr.org/pipermail/inquiry/ > isw: http://intersci.ss.uci.edu/wiki/index.php/JLA > oeiswiki: http://www.oeis.org/wiki/User:Jon_Awbrey > facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/JonnyCache > > > ----------------------------- > PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON > PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to > [email protected] . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L > but to [email protected] with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the > BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm > . > > > > > >
----------------------------- PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to [email protected] . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
