John - I'm not sure I see your point about the 'mediating act'. I tend to
steer clear of linguistics, but I view your example as a mechanical transfer
of the book from Sue to the child. 'Naming' the book as a symbol of a
birthday gift doesn't, to me, suggest mediation.
To me, mediation brings in commonalities between A and B and connects them
via this commonality. As such, mediation often but not always, functions as
general laws.
The common syllogism shows this:
All men are wise
Socrates is a man
Therefore Socrates is wise.
Here, the term 'man' functions as the mediative term for it imposes
commonalities between 'man' and 'Socrates'.
A biological example is the merging of cells with other cells to form a
larger organism, where the many cells will be found to have a common
rule-based operational mode, that enables them to network with each other.
Edwina
----- Original Message -----
From: "John F Sowa" <s...@bestweb.net>
To: <peirce-l@list.iupui.edu>
Sent: Friday, January 27, 2017 2:47 PM
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Universal/General/Continuous and
Particular//Singular/Individual
On 1/26/2017 6:13 PM, Gary Richmond wrote:
the putative distinction between the semeiotic triad seen /as a single
triadic entity/ /versus/ the triad *as expressing three relations* seems
to me to one worth entertaining in considering what is really a
fundamental aspect of Peircean semeiotics.
I agree.
As an example of a "degenerate" triad, I would cite Between(x,y,z),
which can be defined as a conjunction of two dyads:
LeftOf(x,y) & LeftOf(y,z)
These two dyads are independent of each other, in the sense that
there is no need to postulate a mediating w that relates x,y,z.
But the triad Give(x,y,z) is nondegenerate because there must be
a mediating act w:
(Exists w)(Giver(w,x) & Gift(w,y) & Recipient(w,z))
Linguists say that all three roles are obligatory for the act
of giving. If Sue x hands a book y to a child z, that might not
be an act of giving. To make it clear that she's giving the book,
a sign of intention, such as "Happy Birthday", would be helpful.
A willingness to accept intentions, laws, and nominalizations as
quantifiable entities distinguishes realists from nominalists.
John
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------
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 .
