BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}Jon, list - yes, makes sense. Yes - I meant the internal Sign
triad....And yes, the three correlates are in 'other Sign
relations'....enables diversity
Edwina
--
This message is virus free, protected by Primus - Canada's
largest alternative telecommunications provider.
http://www.primus.ca
On Thu 13/04/17 6:16 PM , Jon Alan Schmidt jonalanschm...@gmail.com
sent:
Edwina, List:
ET: In a triadic spot/rhema/proposition which has three 'loose
ends' or blank forms - which means, as I understand it, that it is
open to being filled by some subject.
So far, so good. The triadic Sign relation has three loose ends,
which are filled by three subjects--the Sign itself, the Dynamic
Object, and the Dynamic Interpretant.
ET: So, the representamen as a predicate connects to the 'subjects'
of the Dynamic Object and to the Dynamic Interpretant..and even, to
its own nature in itself.
We have agreed that the Representamen is part of the (internal)
triad that constitutes the Sign, so I am guessing that you meant Sign
here, since you went on to mention the (external) Dynamic Object and
Dynamic Interpretant. The predicate is not the Sign itself, but the
triadic Sign relation. Again, the Sign itself is one of the three
subjects that are the correlates of that relation, the others being
the Dynamic Object and Dynamic Interpretant.
ET: That, to me - shows the triad - but the key to this semiosis is
the 'loose ends or blank forms which enable interactions rather than
dyadic closure or monadic/medad closure.
Remember, the triad is internal to the Sign (Oi-R-Ii), rather than
external (Od-S-Id). The interaction that you are rightly concerned
to maintain comes about because the three correlates are in other
triadic Sign relations, not just the specific one that we are
discussing in any particular case. To show this, we would need to
incorporate these additional relations into the diagram; but it would
not take long for the resulting complexity to overwhelm our ability to
comprehend any visual representation of what is happening.
Put another way, every relation has a specific valency--e.g., three
for a triadic relation--but each correlate is effectively unlimited
in the number of relations that it can have. I assume that is why
Peirce held that there are no absolute singulars in the sense of
being completely determinate in every conceivable respect; every
subject has infinitely many potential predicates. Hence the openness
and diversity that your are seeking is not a property of the triadic
Sign relation; instead, it reflects the capacity of subjects to
occupy any of the three spots (Sign, Dynamic Object, Dynamic
Interpretant)--or rather, all of the three spots with respect to
various other subjects.
Does that make sense?
Thanks,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Professional Engineer, Amateur
Philosopher, Lutheran Laymanwww.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt [1] -
twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt [2]
On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 4:18 PM, Edwina Taborsky wrote:
Jerry, list - as someone with no background in chemistry, I have a
few questions:
1) I understand your analysis using the 'doctrine of valency' in
chemistry and, as you point out, Peirce was a chemist. Now, in
Robert's, p.115, he shows several figures - and figure 3 'represents
triadic spots'. And he explains that the definition of the rhema or
spot, which is the proposition [subject and predicate] - can be shown
by a line/tail and heavy dot, so to speak. A monad has one dot and an
open/loose end or tail. If you join two monads/spots you get closure,
i.e., no open ends. A dyad has two open ends/tails but if you add
another, you'll get another dyad [which is the problem with
linearity]. But the triad - and the image is the same as that given
in 1.347- obviously, since Roberts is working from that section. [See
also Peirce 3.470]. I hope I've understood you correctly.
2) I still don't see why this isn't an image of the semiosic triad.
The rhema is the proposition, i.e., a semiosic relation made up of a
subject and predicate. In a triadic spot/rhema/proposition which has
three 'loose ends' or blank forms - which means, as I understand it,
that it is open to being filled by some subject. So, the representamen
as a predicate connects to the 'subjects' of the Dynamic Object and to
the Dynamic Interpretant..and even, to its own nature in itself. That,
to me - shows the triad - but the key to this semiosis is the 'loose
ends or blank forms which enable interactions rather than dyadic
closure or monadic/medad closure.
Now- what am I missing in this view?
Edwina
--
This message is virus free, protected by Primus - Canada's
largest alternative telecommunications provider.
http://www.primus.ca [4]
Links:
------
[1] http://www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt
[2] http://twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
[3]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'tabor...@primus.ca\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
[4] 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 .
