List, Kirsti, Ben: I am a bit puzzled by these responses, which appear strange to my way of thinking.
By the standards of some, I am not a “Peircer”. My aim is bio-medical reserch on specific quantitative issues; the writings of CSP are studied in order to contribute to my understanding of the logics of the (bio-medical) sciences. I attempt to place CSP’s doctrines in context. Thus, I interpret CSP’s writings and terminology in terms of early 21 st Century biological science / mathematics; while paying do heed to the status of late 19 th Century status of language usage, science and mathematics. First, my post was in reference to the December, 2015 posts of Franklin and Frederik and the discussion thread at that point. The meaning of the CSP-coined term “dicisign” was the issue on my mind. It was brought to my mind by recent progress on the diagrammatic logic (I thank Frederik for his inspection of this topic and especially for the introduction to the book by Greaves, The Philosophical Status of Diagrams, which is an original and intensive inquiry into CSP’s diagrammatic logic.) Secondly, it is of critical importance to examine the precedence for CSP’s usage of terms related to the count of the number “three”. From the Apple Dictionary: triad |ˈtrīˌad| noun 1 a group or set of three connected people or things: the triad of medication, diet, and exercise are necessary in diabetes care. • a chord of three musical notes, consisting of a given note with the third and fifth above it. • a Welsh form of literary composition with an arrangement of subjects or statements in groups of three. 2 (also Triad) a secret society originating in China, typically involved in organized crime. • a member of a triad. DERIVATIVES triadic |trīˈadik| adjectivetriad ( sense 1) <x-dictionary:r:m_en_us1300231:com.apple.dictionary.NOAD#xpointer(//*[@id='DWS-020075'])> ORIGIN mid 16th century: from French triade, or via late Latin from Greek trias, triad-, from treis ‘three.’ Within this context, I was using the term “triad” in the sense of three terms of CSP, two of his own creation. In this context, in contrast to the usage by Frederik (as best as I recall), I was using the three terms to acknowledge the modal sequence of inferences. That is, CSP in his diagram of the eight terms that infer the ninth term, “argument” includes these three terms as a linear sequence of inferences. I view the eight terms as necessary (in CSP’s mindset) to construct an an argument consistent with his analysis of natural sorts and kinds (sinsigns). My post merely recommended a book by a philosopher on the topic of mereology, the study of part - whole illations. CSP is not mentioned in the book in either the author index or the term index. If one seeks to translate the In CSP meta-speak, a natural kind (sinsign) is composed of parts which can be indexed and these parts can then be composed into sentences (dicisigns) that are then composed into arguments which are either true, false or indetermine. (For an alternative (physical) worldview, R. Carnap’s book, The Logical Structure of the World” (1930s). The sentence, "The union of units unifies the unity” is an abstract statement about collections of ‘sinsigns” that can be decomposed into “indexes" and unified by an argument to generate “legisigns." I hope this clarifies my usage and places the reference to the 2015 posts in context of triadicity in the 21 st Century. I believe that CSP’s logic goes deep into sublative structures of natural sorts and kinds. Unfortunately, the depth of CSP’s scientific logic is seldom recognized. Cheers Jerry > On Feb 1, 2017, at 5:02 PM, Benjamin Udell <baud...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Kirsti, Jerry, list, > > Kirsti is generally correct. I remember years ago at peirce-l when Orliaguet > made the same point (with superfluous sarcasm) to Kirsti. He quoted a passage > by Peirce that required understanding the term "triad" to refer to the three > correlates in triadic action with one another — sign-object-interpretant — > and not to any other trichotomy (three-way division); otherwise the passage > by Peirce became nonsense. Still it should be noted that on some occasions > Peirce used the term "triad" to refer to a merely classificatory trichotomy. > But I think that, in Peircean contexts, Kirsti's point is not only supported > in Peirce but also promotes much more clarity than does treating "triad" and > "trichotomy" as interchangeable. Over the years commenters at peirce-l have > tended to adhere to the distinction and FWIW I always stick to it. > > Best, Ben > > On 1/31/2017 5:22 PM, kirst...@saunalahti.fi wrote: >> Hi, >> >> I feel a need to point out that "sinsign, index and dicisign" presents a >> trichotomy of signs. Not a triad, but a tree-part division, a >> classification, if you wish. >> >> All triads and triadicity involve mediation. Triadicity also involves >> meaning, not just signs. >> >> Kirsti >> >> >> >> Jerry LR Chandler kirjoitti 26.1.2017 21:07: >>> List, Franklin, Frederik: >>> >>> The OUP book, >>> >>> THE STRUCTURE OF OBJECTS >>> >>> by Kathrin Koslicki (2008) >>> >>> addresses some of the philosophy that appears to be difficult to >>> understand. >>> >>> More particularly, it illuminates the triad, sinsign, index and >>> dicisign in relation to parts of the whole, the illation between the >>> identity, the individual and the particular that also considers the >>> chemical perspective. >>> Unfortunately, the intertwining of the meaning of this triad with >>> diagrammatic logic as described by Mark Greaves in “The >>> Philosophical Status of Diagrams” is beyond the scope of the logic >>> presented. >>> >>> Cheers >>> >>> Jerry >>> >>>> On Dec 12, 2015, at 4:10 PM, Franklin Ransom >>>> <pragmaticist.lo...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> Jerry, list, >>>> >>>> Well, I'm glad that someone agrees with me, as far as the statement >>>> went. >>>> >>>> Jerry, I think that you raise some good questions. Though, I must >>>> admit I'm not entirely sure what a couple of your terms mean, such >>>> as 'coupling' and 'grammar'. As for 'unit', I'll guess you mean >>>> something like what the original meaning of 'atom' meant, as >>>> something basic and indivisible from which other, more complex >>>> things can be built up out of. >>>> >>>> I've decided to answer the questions in the order reverse to the >>>> order in which they were presented. >>>> >>>>> Do you consider this part - whole coupling to be "mereological in >>>>> character"? >>>> >>>> I'm not sure what that means, but since it's a part-whole relation, >>>> and mereology is a study concerned with such relations, it would >>>> seem almost tautological that it is "mereological in character". But >>>> there are different and competing theories in mereology, and I don't >>>> want to be taken as supporting any one of them specifically. >>>> >>>>> Is smoke a unit? Is a precept a unit? >>>> >>>> I take it you meant "percept", not precept. I would say it depends >>>> on the context; in one context, we could take percepts as our basic >>>> elements, or units, while in another context of analysis we might >>>> try to break it down more, as presumably someone in experimental >>>> psychology might try to break down sense impressions to the physical >>>> operations of the body and the thing experienced. Similarly with >>>> smoke, if we just wanted to talk about the matter in terms of >>>> commonly understood objects and signs, then it could be considered a >>>> unit; but obviously, the chemist could try to break it down more >>>> into the specific analysis of gases, and down to the atoms, of which >>>> the smoke is composed, and so on further to particles and such. >>>> >>>>> If "whole work of understanding." implies a coupling of external >>>>> events with internal processes, then what is the nature of the >>>>> grammar the generates the coupling of the parts of the whole? >>>> >>>> This is where the meaning of 'coupling' worries me, but I'll suppose >>>> it's something like correspondence. Also not sure what grammar is >>>> supposed to be in this context. By "whole work of understanding", I >>>> meant the introduction of a concept, whether in perceptual judgment >>>> or in an abduction, for explaining the phenomenon (percept); which >>>> concept, when analyzed into possible further interactions with the >>>> object of the percept, and then put to experimental test in >>>> practical conduct, proves helpful for interacting with the object of >>>> the percept. So the whole process of semiosis, up to the following >>>> out of a scientific inquiry into the object, may be required to >>>> grasp the (whole) object. Put in terms of correspondence, I suppose >>>> that the fact that the object responds to our interactions in the >>>> way we predict is what reveals that there is a correspondence >>>> between our concept of the object and the object as it is in itself. >>>> >>>> I'm not sure how to relate that to "the nature of the grammar the >>>> generates the coupling of the parts of the whole". Part and whole >>>> here were originally about the object as immediate and the object as >>>> dynamical, but relating what is going on between external events and >>>> internal processes (i.e., perception?), is a different kind of >>>> relating. Perhaps (and this is simply a suggestion), we might think >>>> of there being the real object, which has a part of it involved in >>>> perception, and there being the mind, which has a part of it >>>> involved in perception, and these two (the real object and the mind) >>>> are themselves parts of a semiosis, and so the 'grammar' that would >>>> ultimately be appropriate would be that offered by semiotic. >>>> >>>>> What is the nature of the coupling between the smoke and the >>>>> "whole" of the experience? >>>> >>>> Hmm, that's a good question. Partly it depends upon what is meant by >>>> experience, and whether one subscribes to the doctrine of immediate >>>> perception. If one includes perception and conception, and what is >>>> perceived and conceived, then smoke would be a part of the >>>> experience; and with respect to perception, it would be a part of >>>> smoke, but with respect to conception it would be the whole of the >>>> smoke. But, it is good to recognize that in such case, we can think >>>> of experience in a somewhat flexible way, such that we could >>>> consider the initial experience as one of perception only, then the >>>> experience of seeing the smoke and coming to recognize it as smoke, >>>> and then the experience later of interacting with the fire that is >>>> the source of the smoke; or we could lump these altogether as one >>>> long experience, and include in it any other interactions we ever >>>> have or could have of perceiving the smoke. Of course, even in the >>>> latter case, the smoke and the experience of it will not be the same >>>> thing, because there is always us, the ones experiencing the smoke, >>>> either as individuals or as a community, that are also always >>>> involved in the experience. So the smoke remains part of the >>>> experience, not the whole of it; while whether we consider the smoke >>>> as experienced in part, or as a whole, depends on how experience is >>>> considered in a given context of analysis. >>>> >>>> -- Franklin >>>> >>>> ---------------------------------------------- >>>> >>>> On Sat, Dec 12, 2015 at 3:41 PM, Jerry LR Chandler >>>> <jerry_lr_chand...@me.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> List, Frank: >>>> >>>> On Dec 12, 2015, at 11:16 AM, Franklin Ransom wrote: >>>> That effect of the smoke is in some sense part of what it is to be >>>> smoke. Going beyond the part of the real that we perceive, and >>>> grasping it as a whole, requires the whole work of understanding. >>>> But while the percept is not "smoke itself", i.e. is not the whole >>>> of the object, it is nevertheless as much a part of smoke as it is a >>>> part of the perceiver. >>>> >>>> While I concur with these sentences, I would ask further of your >>>> views: >>>> >>>> What is the nature of the coupling between the smoke and the "whole" >>>> of the experience? >>>> >>>> If "whole work of understanding." implies a coupling of external >>>> events with internal processes, then what is the nature of the >>>> grammar the generates the coupling of the parts of the whole? >>>> >>>> Is smoke a unit? Is a precept a unit? >>>> >>>> Do you consider this part - whole coupling to be "mereological in >>>> character"? >>>> >>>> Just curious. >>>> >>>> Cheers >>>> >>>> Jerry >>> >>> ----------------------------- >>> 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 [1] . >>> >>> >>> >>> Links: >>> ------ >>> [1] 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 . > > > >
----------------------------- 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 .
