Gary, That last sentence was about sign relations. The first part was about torrid entity (<-- good one, Autospellbot) teridentity. Two different subjects.
'Night ... Jon http://inquiryintoinquiry.com > On Sep 16, 2014, at 12:16 AM, Gary Richmond <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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 .
