Edwina, List: CP 2.233-242 discusses *triadic relations* and identifies Representamen/Object/Interpretant as a paradigmatic example of one. Peirce also states, "A *Sign *is a representamen of which some interpretant is a cognition of a mind"--not a triadic entity, but "the First Correlate of a triadic relation." CP 2.243-253 then discusses the three *trichotomies*, which do not divide "triadic relations" in general, but Signs in particular--"first, according as the sign in itself is a mere quality, is an actual existent, or is a general law; secondly, according as the relation of the sign to its object consists in the sign's having some character in itself, or in some existential relation to that object, or in its relation to an interpretant; thirdly, according as its Interpretant represents it as a sign of possibility or as a sign of fact or a sign of reason." CP 2.254-264 then presents the ten Sign *classifications*.
I recently re-read a couple of your online papers in an effort to understand your model better. My suggestion that it treats the three relations as dyadic comes from "The Methodology of Semiotic Morphology: An Introduction" (http://see.library.utoronto.ca/SEED/Vol5-2/Taborsky.htm). ET: A relation is a dyadic string, a primitive morphology of inÂteraction, where two nodes functioning as horizons of influence connect to provide within that range a measured configuration of data, information or knowledge functioning within time and space – and mode. This seems to be saying that *all *relations are dyadic and function within time and space (i.e., exist). Am I misunderstanding, or has your view perhaps changed since writing that piece? Note that CP 2.283 states, "A genuine Index and its Object must be existent individuals (whether things or facts), and its immediate Interpretant must be of the same character." It does not say that *all *dyadic relations require both correlates to be existents; after all, *any *relation that has only two correlates--whether Possibles, Existents, or Necessitants--is dyadic by definition. Regards, Jon On Thu, Feb 9, 2017 at 9:27 AM, Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca> wrote: > Jon - I am using Peirce's term of *triadic relations*. See his Division > of Sign, eg, 2.233 and all through that section. He uses the term of > 'trichotomy' referring to whether the triadic relations are divisible by > the three model categories. See. 2.238. > > I disagree with your view that my model sees them as *dyadic relations*. > A dyadic relation can only be between two existential entities, and 'my > model', as you refer to it, does not see the Representamen-Object > interaction as between two existential entities. Same with the > R-Interpretant, or R-R....these are NOT dyadic relations. See note to > 2.239, which specifically says that a dyadic relation requires that both > its correlates are existents. 2.283. I've explained this repeatedly to you > before.... > > 'My model' as you refer to it [suggesting that it is not also that of > Peirce??] does not view the Object as an object until it is in a triadic > semiosic relation. Same with the Representamen and Interpretant. And as > i've said, a triad of O-R-I can have that Interpretant functioning at the > same time as an Object Relation in another triad. That's part of the > Peircean networking. > > Edwina > > ----- Original Message ----- > *From:* Jon Alan Schmidt <jonalanschm...@gmail.com> > *To:* Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca> > *Cc:* Peirce List <peirce-l@list.iupui.edu> > *Sent:* Thursday, February 09, 2017 10:05 AM > *Subject:* Re: [PEIRCE-L] Possible Article of Interest - CSP's "Mindset" > from AI perspective > > Edwina, List: > > Is it right to say that the nine terms in Peirce's three trichotomies are > "triadic relations"? It seems to me that even in your model, they > correspond to *dyadic *relations--the Representamen with itself, with its > Object, and with its Interpretant. There is only one *triadic *relation > in a given Sign, and it is not reducible to these three dyadic relations. > In that sense, it is the ten Sign classifications--rather than the nine > terms in three trichotomies--that characterize the triadic relation; i.e., > a Qualisign has a different triadic relation than a Rhematic Indexical > Legisign, which has a different triadic relation than an Argument, etc. On > the other hand, in Peirce's later ten-trichotomy scheme, there is a > specific division "According to the Triadic Relation of the Sign to its > Dynamical Object and to its Normal Interpretant" (CP 8.344; 1908), which is > associated with "the Nature of the Assurance of the Utterance: assurance > of Instinct; assurance of Experience; assurance of Form" (CP 8.374; 1908). > > Regards, > > Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA > Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman > www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt > > On Thu, Feb 9, 2017 at 8:24 AM, Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca> > wrote: > >> Mike - I think you are not alone in not understanding Jerry's post. His >> comments on the 9 semiosic relations, which are *triadic relations* and >> not triads, was in my view, bizarre and had nothing to do with Peirce's >> analysis of their nature. >> >> With regard to your comment below on names, which are symbols - since >> human thought is primarily via symbols - then, in a way, such symbols are >> the 'instantiation' of the thought. I'm not sure what you mean by >> 'necessary signs'..unless you mean the non-symbolic iconic and indexical >> relations. >> >> Edwina >> >
----------------------------- 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 .
