Jon wrote: "A triadic sign relations determines a number of dyadic (100714-1) 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."
This is an excellent analysis of the problem we have with Edwina's semiotics. Even after the extensive readings of Peirce's original writings she apparently has done, she may have missed the fundamental concept of semiosis that Peirce advocated-- an IRREDUCIBLE triadic relation, which she equates with a system of three dyadic interactions -- input, mediation and output, or f(x) = y, which, I think, is a case of mis-applying a mathematical concept to semiosis (as I pointed out to her on several occasions during the past couple of years, without any effect). In [biosemiotics:7144] posted today, stimulated by Clark's thoughtful post, I formulated what I called the PHPHC (Peirce-Hofstadter Principle of Human Cognition), which in effect prevents equating one or more of the lower dimensional projections with its high-dimensional source. I then applied PHPHC to the famous Einstein-Bohr debate on the nature of light (or reality in general), concluding that Einstein might have violated PHPHC. It is possible that Edwina is making a similar mistake. 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 > 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 donât want to go among mad people," ....."Oh, you >> canât >> help that," said the Cat: "weâre all mad here. Iâm mad. Youâre >> mad." >> "How do you know Iâm mad?" said Alice. >> "You must be," said the Cat, "or you wouldnât have come here.â >> >> 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? âContrariwise,' 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.â >> >> 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 .
