Jon "Trying to comprehend triadic relations by means of their projective trichotomies is a project ultimately doomed to fail."
A couple of concrete examples would help in understanding what you mean by the doomed failure you are referring to. With all the best. Sung _________________________________________________ Sungchul Ji, Ph.D. Associate Professor of Pharmacology and Toxicology Department of Pharmacology and Toxicology Ernest Mario School of Pharmacy Rutgers University Piscataway, N.J. 08855 732-445-4701 www.conformon.net > Thread: > JA:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/14286 > JA:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/14290 > GF:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/14313 > JA:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/14350 > JA:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/14351 > JA:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/14352 > JA:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/14359 > GF:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/14383 > JLRC:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/14388 > JA:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/14394 > JA:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/14409 > JA:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/14422 > > JLRC: These questions penetrate to the heart of > >>>>> CSP's rhetorical stance as illustrated by > >>>>> the triadic triad: > >>>>> > >>>>> qualisign, sinsign, legisign, > >>>>> icon, index, symbol, > >>>>> rhema, dicisign, argument. > >>>>> > >>>>> If these terms are to form a coherent pattern of inferences, > >>>>> is it necessary that the terms themselves, under different > >>>>> situations and constraints, be impure? (That is, have > >>>>> more than one qualitative or quantitative meaning?) > > Jerry, List, > > There is something that needs to be said about the proper use of > categories and > classifications in Peirce's work and what I regard as their mis-use in a > great > number of contemporary discussions. > > One of the first issues I can remember pointing out when I joined the > Peirce > List was the distinction between "triadicities" and "trichotomies", the > first > relating to properties of triadic relations and the second relating to > mutually > exclusive and exhaustive partitions of a domain. Although one can form > what is > known in mathematics as a "projective" relation between the two > structures, the > trichotomies remain pale reflections of the richer triadicities, > distorting and > reducing much of their information. Trying to comprehend triadic > relations by > means of their projective trichotomies is a project ultimately doomed to > fail. > > To be continued ... > > Jon > > > Jon Awbrey wrote: > >> Jerry, List, >> >> Re: "CSP's rhetorical stance" >> >> Somewhere in the classical part of my education I picked up the notion >> that rhetoric is an inquiry into the forms of argument, discussion, and >> reasoning that "consider the audience", in other words, that take the >> nurture and the nature of the interpreter into account. >> >> But considering the interpreter, putting the interpreter back into the >> process of interpretation, is the very thing that sets Peirce's account >> of information, inquiry, logic, signs, and pragmatic thinking in general >> apart from the run of logical systems that had been developed to any >> significant technical degree up to his time and even long after it. >> >> The Horror! The Horror! A Spectre Is Haunting Logic The Spectre Of >> Relativism! >> >> Well, no, not really, but you'd think it from the ter-roar that >> dyad-in-the-wool flatlanders raise at the very idea of moving >> logic into the 3rd dimension. >> >> To be continued ... >> >> Jon >> >> >> Jon Awbrey wrote: >>> Jerry, List, >>> >>> If we understand what Peirce is talking about then it's usually fairly >>> easy to understand what he says, but it's almost impossible to >>> understand what he says if we do not understand what he's talking >>> about. >>> >>> That is not a paraphrase of the Meno paradox >>> it is only a clue to the role of collateral >>> acquaintance in escaping the Meno paradox. >>> >>> I'll try address your questions more directly tomorrow ... >>> >>> Jon >>> >>>> Jerry LR Chandler wrote: >>>>> List, Jon: >>>>> >>>>> These are excellent questions! What do you think about these >>>>> extentions? >>>>> >>>>> These questions penetrate to the heart of CSP's rhetorical stance as >>>>> illustrated by the triadic triad: >>>>> >>>>> qualisign, sinsign, legisign, >>>>> icon, index, symbol, >>>>> rhema, dicisign, argument. >>>>> >>>>> If these terms are to form a coherent pattern of inferences, >>>>> is it necessary that the terms themselves, under different >>>>> situations and constraints, be impure? (That is, have >>>>> more than one qualitative or quantitative meaning?) >>>>> >>>>> Further questions about the purity of thought arise readily... >>>>> >>>>> In particular, does the concept of a decisign emerge because of the >>>>> differences between pure and impure indices, such as the indices >>>>> between chains and branched chains of inferences? >>>>> >>>>> On a technical note, often CSP's chains of inferences appear to start >>>>> with Lavoisier's principle of purity which is necessary for all exact >>>>> (pragmatic) logic of chemistry and molecular biology? >>>>> >>>>> Does Lavoisier's principle of purity have any influence on CSP's use >>>>> of the terms, Pure Icon and Pure Index? >>>>> >>>>> Cheers >>>>> >>>>> Jerry >>>>> > > -- > > 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 peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
