Jeff, Jon, lists,
I think that all that is required for an ordered triple, or an ordering
of any length, is a rough notion of 'more' or 'less', for example an
ordering of personal preferences, and this is enough for theorems, for
example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow%27s_impossibility_theorem.
Exact quantities are not required. In the case of object, sign,
interpretant, insofar as the object determines the sign to determine the
interpretant to be determined by the object as the sign is determined by
the object, the order of semiotic determination is 'object, sign,
interpretant', although object, sign, interpretant are not to be
understood as acting like successive falling dominoes.
Best, Ben
On 1/27/2015 2:08 PM, Jeffrey Brian Downard wrote:
[....]
Here is the starting question: Doesn't the notion of an ordered triple
require that we already have things sorted out in such a way that we are
able to ascribe quantitative values to each subject that is a correlate
of the triadic relation?
[....]
-----------------------------
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 .
