Aw: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Laws of Nature as Signs

Thu, 13 Apr 2017 12:45:43 -0700

Jon, List,
You wrote:
"To be honest, given that the Sign relation is genuinely triadic, I have never fully understood why Peirce initially classified Signs on the basis of one correlate and two dyadic relations.  Perhaps others on the List can shed some light on that."
 
I have a guess about that: I remember from a thread with Jon Awbrey about relation reduction something like the following:
A triadic relation is called irreducible, because it cannot compositionally be reduced to three dyadic relations. Compositional reduction is the real kind of reduction. But there is another kind of reduction, called projective (or projectional?) reduction, which is a kind of consolation prize for people, who want to reduce. It is possible for some triadic relations.
Now a triadic relation, say, (S,O,I) might be reduced projectionally to (S,O), (O,I), (I,S).
My guess is now, that Peirce uses another kind of projectional reduction: (S,S), (S,O), (S,I).
It is only a guess, because I am not a mathematician. But at least I would say, that mathematically a relation wit itself is possible, so the representamen relation can be called relation too, instead of correlate.
Best,
Helmut
 
 13. April 2017 um 15:40 Uhr
 "Jon Alan Schmidt" <jonalanschm...@gmail.com> wrote:
 
Edwina, List:
 
Again, my understanding is that the three-spoke diagram represents one triadic relation.  As such, it corresponds to only one of the ten trichotomies of 1908--the very last one, "the Triadic Relation of the Sign to the Dynamical Object and to its Normal Interpretant" (EP 2:483), which divides the Sign "As to the Nature of the Assurance of the Utterance" (EP 2:490) into Instinct/Experience/Form.  Hence the spokes themselves are all in the same mode, even though the correlates at their ends and the dyadic relations between those correlates can be in different modes.
 
By contrast, the three trichotomies of 1903 are for "the sign in itself" as Qualisign/Sinsign/Legisign, "the relation of the sign to its Object" as Icon/Index/Symbol, and how "its Interpretant represents it" as Rheme/Dicent/Argument (EP 2:291-292).  Peirce subsequently characterized the latter as "the Relation of the Sign to the Normal Interpretant" (EP 2:483), but I have been suggesting recently that it should be associated instead with the relation of the Sign to the Dynamic Interpretant.
 
To be honest, given that the Sign relation is genuinely triadic, I have never fully understood why Peirce initially classified Signs on the basis of one correlate and two dyadic relations.  Perhaps others on the List can shed some light on that.
 
Regards,
 
Jon S.
 
 
On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 6:20 PM, Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca> wrote:

Jon, list - thanks for your comments. A rapid response:

1) The reason I stick to the three relations - see Peirce's 8.335,8.337 comments on the relations to the Dynamic Object, Relations to the Interpretant..but the reason is that each of the three 'spikes' so to speak, can be in a different modal category. So, in a rhematic indexical legisign, the Representamen spoke can be in Thirdness; the relation to the Dynamic Object in a mode of Secondness; the relation to the Dy. Interpretant in a mode of Firstness. That's why I refer to relations in the plural. These interactions most certainly are NOT independent - and my use of the plural of RelationS doesn't imply their independence. Instead, it implies their modal differentiation within this singular semiosic interaction.

2) The problem I have with the linear image of the movement from DO to DI...and Peirce often uses it, which is one relation with three correlates, is that I also am interested in the morphological result of the semiosis. Not simply in the passing of X via Y to Z. But the physiological FORM.  That is - referring to my oft-quoted 4.551 'Mind ..in crystal, in the work of bees'...etc... I am considering that the Sign, that triad, takes on a FORM. This FORM is the full Sign. So, a cell - let's say a single cell - is the semiosic Form, a Sign. This is the result of the interaction of the Representamen HABITS interacting with many Dynamic Objects [water, nutrients, chemicals, etc etc]...which are then transformed via the HABITS held within the Representamen into the Dynamic Interpretant - that CELL. BUT - all three parts of this whole FORM/SIGN must be operative in this semiosic process:   The input from the various multiple Dynamic Interpretants.....transformed via the general rules held by the Representamen....resulting in the Dynamic Interpretant FORM of the whole system...that particular cell.

Edwina

--
This message is virus free, protected by Primus - Canada's
largest alternative telecommunications provider.

http://www.primus.ca

On Wed 12/04/17 6:33 PM , Jon Alan Schmidt jonalanschm...@gmail.com sent:

Edwina, List:
 
ET:  A large issue is the definition of 'sign'. Is it the representamen alone? Or is it the triad of the Immediate Object-Represntamen-Immediate Interpretant? Or is it even larger - and includes the Dynamic Object?
 
I believe that our recent joint resolution to use "Sign" only for the internal Oi-R-Ii triad could go a long way toward clearing up this particular terminological difficulty.  The external Dynamic Object is not part of the Sign itself, it is something distinct that is in a single triadic relation with both the Sign and the external Dynamic Interpretant.
 
ET:  My problem is that I can't figure out what ONE triadic Relation means. I can understand the 'umbrella image' of the triad [1.347], which is something like  a three spoked umbrella: -<.....but one can see even from this that there are THREE spokes or Relations in that image.
 
Lake Gary R., my understanding of that particular diagram is that its spokes do not correspond to three distinct relations; instead, it represents one triadic relation with three distinct subjects (correlates).  The three-pronged shape is intended to convey that none of the correlates is in an independent relation with either of the other correlates; the triadic relation is not reducible to multiple dyadic relations.  The basic idea is the same as when the triadic Sign relation is represented as a single proposition, _____ stands for _____ to _____; rather than three relations, there is one relation with three correlates, which correspond to the three blanks.  Another well-known example is _____ gives _____ to _____; giving is not a combination of  three relations, it is one triadic relation.
 
ET:  I can even imagine ONE Sign SET - made up of that image as outlined by JAS, made up of the Immediate Object-Representamen-Immediate Interpretant - and this triadic Sign would interact with the Dynamic Object - which is itself made up of a triad of an Immediate Object-Represntamen-Immediate Interpretant...and forms a Dynamic Interpretant, which is itself made up of an Immediate Object-Representamen-Immediate Interpretant.
 
This is a good example of how restricting the term "Sign" to the internal Oi-R-Ii triad might help clarify things.  There is one such Sign at each "node" of the external Sign relation--the Sign itself, the Dynamic Object that determines it, and the Dynamic Interpretant that it (possibly) determines.  Again, the latter is not one triad that consists of three relations, it is one triadic relation with three correlates.
 
Is that helpful at all?
 
Regards,
 
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman
 
On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 3:02 PM, Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca> wrote:

Yes, that's what I've been mulling over for years -  where I think that there are three relations rather than one triadic relation.

A large issue is the definition of 'sign'. Is it the representamen alone? Or is it the triad of the Immediate Object-Represntamen-Immediate Interpretant? Or is it even larger - and includes the Dynamic Object?

My problem is that I can't figure out what ONE triadic Relation means. I can understand the 'umbrella image' of the triad [1.347], which is something like  a three spoked umbrella: -<.....but one can see even from this that there are THREE spokes or Relations in that image. They may certainly interact and affect each other, but - this doesn't reduce them to ONE triadic Relation. I simply can't 'imagize' what 'one triadic Relation' would look like or how it would function.

I can imagine ONE Sign SET [not a Relation], as an irreducible set, made up of three Relations.

I can even imagine ONE Sign SET - made up of that image as outlined by JAS, made up of the Immediate Object-Representamen-Immediate Interpretant - and this triadic Sign would interact with the Dynamic Object - which is itself made up of a triad of an Immediate Object-Represntamen-Immediate Interpretant...and forms a Dynamic Interpretant, which is itself made up of an Immediate Object-Representamen-Immediate Interpretant.

But- that's making me dizzy and I'll stop.

Edwina
--
This message is virus free, protected by Primus - Canada's
largest alternative telecommunications provider.

http://www.primus.ca

----------------------------- 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 .

Reply via email to