Thread: JA:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/16523 HR:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/16550 JA:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/16551 HR:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/16572 HR:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/16573 HR:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/16595 JA:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/16655 HR:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/16658 HR:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/16663
Helmut, List, I'll be traveling today and it may be a while before I can get back to this. The relevant definitions of the two types of reducibility that usually arise can be found in the articles I linked. Peirce's ir/reducibility is the more fundamental concept, having to do with the question of whether relations can be formed from others by relational composition, and this type is invoked in every variety of formal construction. Consequently, projective reducibility does not defeat Peirce's thesis about the primal nature of triadic relations. But people sometimes confuse the two ideas, so it's good to get clear about their difference. Projective reducibility, when you can get it, is more of a "consolation prize" for diehard dyadic reductionists, who tend to ignore the fact that you can't do anything constructive without triadic relations being involved the mix. Still, it is good to recognize it when it occurs. Regards, Jon On 7/6/2015 5:41 AM, Helmut Raulien wrote:
*Gesendet:* Sonntag, 05. Juli 2015 um 23:13 Uhr *Von:* "Helmut Raulien" <h.raul...@gmx.de> *An:* jawb...@att.net *Cc:* "Peirce List" <peirce-l@list.iupui.edu> *Betreff:* Aw: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Survey of Relation Theory • 1 Dear Jon, List, Thank you! What I was having in mind by the term "sign relation", was the individual or elementary sign relation. All this is very interesting, and I wish I was a youth again, and still could decide what to study: Maybe mathematics? But I am not dead yet, and may be able of catching up a bit, but it will take time. Surely, in a couple of rather weeks than days, I will bother you with another question. I hope you All have had a good Independence Day! As a non-American I am envious, eg. of the right to pursue happiness. Not, that in other nations people are being denied this right, but as a part of a constitution it is well estimated as a sign, and we know, that signs do something. I am thinking about the question: Is a triadic relation irreducible, if the three sets are classes? I think, that "representamens", "objects", and "dyadic relations between them" are classes. But I am still pondering about the interpretant, whether "interpretants" is a class, because: An interpretant is likely to be a representamen again. And: Is an interpretant an element of a relation? I think, it is not. It can change a relation (habit), but not necessarily does: In contradiction to Sheldrake I think, that natural laws are not changed by physical effects (I think that in inanimate realm "interpretant" is "effect"). Well, all this is just an anticipation. I dont have a question now, but later. Until then, all the best, Helmut Supplement: Sorry, the semiotic part of the above post was nonsense. I always lose a track again I have already found. The question that possibly may arise later, is, whether the Peircean "irreducibility" is the same as projective irreducibility.
-- 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 .
