I think that bringing in other words in place of other words...doesn't
change the analysis.
Jon wrote, of his diagramme, which is quite clear,
The "R" brings to mind a triadic relation R, which collateral knowledge
tells me
is a set of 3-tuples.
BUT - calling the triad Sign (capital S) as an 'R' (Representamen) doesn't
change the format. And calling the three Relations within that triad as
'3-tuples' doesn't change the format.
We agree (I think) that the semiosic sign is irreducibly triadic. The
quibble seems to be, in my view, trivial, over whether to consider this
irreducible triad as A Relation or, as I do, as an irreducible set of 3
Relations. And I consider that my conclusion is readily supported within the
Peircean analysis - as I've provided quotations from his own analysis of
each one of these 3 Relations, (and he uses the term 'relation' in his
discussion, not 'interaction' as does John D) and his pointing out how they
function differently. It is the FACT of their different function that leads
me to use the plural of the noun 'Relations'. Yet again, no-one is arguing
that any one of these 3 can function alone; they exist only within that
'irreducible triad'. But, so far, no-one seems to be focusing on the
differences within these three - and why one must acknowledge their
differences; the focus seems only to be one whether to call them: a Relation
or an irreducible set of 3 Relations.
And moving into the fallacies of ad hominem (you are unable or unwilling
to..) or ad populum (everyone else thinks like me...) doesn't deal with this
issue.
The question, I think, isn't so much on Relation vs Relations, but on the
nature of the Relation. And I'll continue to use this term as used by
Peirce, rather than 'tuple'. Is it a dyad? I'm saying' no', first, because
the perimeters of the interaction are not between existential individual
entities and second, because the semiosic process is triadic and the single
Relations do not exist on their own. Is a single Relation a dyad? No, again,
because the perimeters of each Relation are part of the whole triadic
interaction.
Certainly, semiosis takes place, as a triadic whole, between two existential
units - whether it be one cell and another cell. What makes this interaction
between, eg, an external Dynamic Object or even an Internal Object ..and the
habits of the Representamen...a Relation? The fact that it can be in any of
the three categorical modes; that moves it from a mere mechanical
interaction to a Relation. Same with the other two processes of the semiosic
triad. 'Something' is going on - and that something is the transformative
action of the categories.
Now, of course, some of you may disagree. But that's how I 'imagize' the
semiosic process and I don't see how my use of the plural of Relations or my
focus on the individual nature of each ofo the three Relations (and I recall
Peirce's focus on their individual nature) is 'offensive' to some.
Edwina
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jon Awbrey" <jawb...@att.net>
To: "Howard Pattee" <hpat...@roadrunner.com>
Cc: <biosemiot...@lists.ut.ee>; "'Peirce-L'" <PEIRCE-L@list.iupui.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2014 12:12 AM
Subject: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Triadic Relations
Howard,
This is where "collateral acquaintance with the object domain" comes in.
We use this or that species of diagrams to represent some of the
properties,
hardly ever all of the properties, of the objects in some object domain.
The
diagrams that Peirce devised to represent propositions about relations are
quite
handy so long as one grasps the conventions of representation,
manipulation, and
interpretation. They are not all that different in kind from Feynman's
diagrams
or Penrose's twistor diagrams. Iconicity is nice when you can get it but
one
has to keep in mind that the map is not the territory, as the saying goes.
What do I see in a picture like this?
```````s``
``````/```
o---<R````
``````\```
```````i``
The "R" brings to mind a triadic relation R, which collateral knowledge
tells me
is a set of 3-tuples. What sort of 3-tuples? The picture sets a place
for them
by means the place-names "o", "s", "i", in no particular order. Without
loss of
generality I can take them up in the ordered triple (o, s, i). All of
this is
just mnemonic machination meant to say that a typical element is (o, s, i)
in R.
It's up to me to remember that R is a subset of O x S x I, with o in O, s
in
S, and i in I. The diagram is just a mnemonic catalyst. You have to know
the
codebook to decode it.
Pictures can victimize people, as Wittgenstein stated and as often
exemplified.
One way that people fall victim to pictures like the one depicted above
is
when they confuse a relation with a single one of its tuples. That would
represents a misunderstanding of what the picture is intended to
represent.
Regards,
Jon
Howard Pattee wrote:
At 10:58 PM 12/16/2014, Jon Awbrey wrote:
Howard,
It's hard for someone trained as a graph theorist to make sense of
that question, since graphs, strictly speaking, are just dyadic (or
binary) relations.
HP: So if it makes any sense, you would say the answer to my question
is, No, by definition.
JA: If we are more loosely speaking about the sorts of diagrams that
Peirce called "graphs" and used to represent propositions about
arbitrary k-place relations, then we'll have to take some time to say
what those are exactly and what they represent and how exactly to
interpret them.
I might very hazily hazard a guess that are talking about a picture
like this:
```````s``
``````/```
o---<R````
``````\```
```````i``
And maybe what you call a "dyadic subgraph" is some 2-part piece of
that?
HP: That's too hazy. So I wonder: Is it possible to faithfully represent
Peirce's triadic concept of a sign by a diagram or picture of any type?
Frederik discusses
<http://www.digitalpeirce.fee.unicamp.br/hoffmann/p-sighof.htm>Hoffmann
(p. 279) but his diagrams are not graphs and the meaning of the lines
joined at the center is totally occult.
Howard
Howard
--
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
.
-----------------------------
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 .
