Howard, I think that Gary F's outline is internally inconsistent. He says
that my description of a Relation is made up of 'two members each' (which he
calls a dyad)...which suggests an interaction between two agents (members).
I certainly didn't mean that.
And Peirce used the term 'member' not to refer to an agent but to refer to
the interaction/Relation. So- Gary F's description is confusing.
Then, he goes on to use the same term (member) to refer to
interaction/Relation and says that the triad has three. Right; that's
exactly what I am saying - but - what we are quibbling about is the
definition of a Relation. I still don't know what Gary F's definition is.
I've said that it's an interaction between two perimeters - NOT AGENTS -
ie, these two poles don't exist per se on their own! But, the
interaction/Relation is finite; it's not an infinite line. Therefore it has
a beginning and end. This is not the same as a dyad, which suggests
self-existent agents at the perimeters.
Edwina
----- Original Message -----
From: "Howard Pattee" <hpat...@roadrunner.com>
To: <biosemiot...@lists.ut.ee>; <biosemiot...@lists.ut.ee>; "'Peirce-L'"
<PEIRCE-L@list.iupui.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2014 8:58 PM
Subject: [PEIRCE-L] Re: [biosemiotics:7752] Re: Peirce categories
At 02:07 PM 12/16/2014, Gary Fuhrman wrote:
The reason that "people keep saying you [Edwina] support dyads" is
that your three "relations" have only two "members" each, to use
Peirce's term. A triadic relation has three members, not two; and a
complexus of three dyadic (two-member) relations is not, according
to Peirce, "a triadic relation."
All these claims are unclear to me. Why are these two descriptions
inconsistent? Is there a graph theory representation of a triadic
relation that does not have a dyadic subgraph?
Howard
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------
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
.
-----------------------------
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 .
