I guess, Jon, we'll have to 'agree to disagree'. I don't agree with your
outline of the semiosic triad of relations ("A triadic sign relations
determines a number of dyadic relations that can be
derived or projected from it, but the dyadic relations so derived or
projected do not determine the triadic sign relation."] You can state your
opinion but it certainly hasn't convinced me - as my statement of my view
hasn't convinced you!
We've been through this debate before on these blogs, where the very mention
of 'relations' was smashed down ...as, for example, when I referred to the
interaction between the Object-Representamen as a 'Relation' - and this
resulted in a flurry of objection that I dared to use the term 'relation' to
describe the interaction. [Same thing, when I used the term 'mediation' to
describe the Representamen and I was attacked for so doing - until I pointed
out that Peirce had used it often]. Then, I've been accused of considering
that such an interaction , eg, Representamen-Object is a 'dyad'...when, as
I've pointed out repeatedly, a dyadic interaction requires that the two
perimeters consist of actual agents - as in Pitcher -to-Batter and this is
not the case in these semiosic interactions.
So, you can stand by your analysis and I'll stand by mine. What I will NOT
do, is deride or mock your analysis - for there is no reason for my doing
that to another scholar.
Edwina
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jon Awbrey" <[email protected]>
To: "Edwina Taborsky" <[email protected]>
Cc: "Peirce List" <[email protected]>; <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 07, 2014 5:28 PM
Subject: Re: Semiotic Theory Of Information -- Discussion
STOI. Semiotic Theory Of Information
JA:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/14551
JA:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/14559
STOI-DIS. Semiotic Theory Of Information -- Discussion
ET:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/14561
JA:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/14570
SJ:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/14573
JA:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/14577
ET:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/14579
JA:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/14581
SJ:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/14584
SJ:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/14585
ET:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/14590
JA:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/14595
ET:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/14596
JA:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/14597
ET:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/14599
SJ:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/14601
JA:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/14603
ET:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/14604
Edwina,
I must have slept through to breakfast, because you're apparently
serving waffles now. Which I'd normally prefer to bologna, for
breakfast anyway, but my doctor has put me on a lo-carb diet.
Once again, functions are special cases of dyadic relations.
The fact that you are trying to explain a triadic sign relation, which is
a more general type of structure, in terms of dyadic relations, much less
functions, is a very common form of reductionism, and it tells me that you
do not comprehend the meaning of the phrase "irreducible triadic relation"
in any of its senses.
A triadic sign relations determines a number of dyadic relations that can
be derived or projected from it, but the dyadic relations so derived or
projected do not determine the triadic sign relation. That is one of the
things that irreducibility means.
Understanding this is ''sine qua non'' for understanding Peirce's
semiotics.
Regards,
Jon
Edwina Taborsky wrote:
But Jon .... I don’t want to go among mad people," ....."Oh, you can’t
help that," said the Cat: "we’re all mad here. I’m mad. You’re mad."
"How do you know I’m mad?" said Alice.
"You must be," said the Cat, "or you wouldn’t have come here.”
I wouldn't say that I have narrowed the range of what can be said, much
less thought, by using the outline of a function to describe the semiosic
process. I'd say that I have expanded the range of what can be understood
as that process...And also, I've explained the dynamical nature of
semiosis...which is not just a cognitive 'this stands for that'
mechanical placement. It's an actual creation; a creation of a
morphological reality - whether that reality be biological or conceptual.
Grammatical? “Contrariwise,' continued Tweedledee, 'if it was so, it
might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't.
That's logic.”
Edwina
--
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 .
