Sorry, Jeffrey- but I don't see how your explanation below denies my
view of the 'umbrella image' of the semiosic process. An 'existential
graph with three tails' is a mere 'kinetic' description of a 2D
diagram. It doesn't mean anything.
The phrase: 'Mother loves child' - I'm removing the 'All' and 'Some'
, or 'X loves Y' ..which seems to be, as noted a dyadic relation
doesn't seem, to me, to fit the triad. It's a rhema with two blanks;
a dyad. Roberts p 115. So- I'm confused about your point.
Edwina
--
This message is virus free, protected by Primus - Canada's
largest alternative telecommunications provider.
http://www.primus.ca
On Fri 14/04/17 10:41 AM , Jeffrey Brian Downard
jeffrey.down...@nau.edu sent:
Gary, F, Gary R. Edwina, John S., List,
Gary F. has made a clear and interesting set of interpretative
points about the “ 'umbrella image' of the triad. While I agree
with much of what he says, let me insert some questions and offer
some qualifications.
I probably shouldn’t intervene in this discussion, but I have to
say (one more time) that if we want to understand Peirce’s terms
— especially what he means by a triadic relation — we need to
read them in the context where Peirce uses them, not lift them out
of their context and drop them into a scheme of our own invention.
Or, to put the point in different terms, let's make our aims clear.
If our goal is to interpret Peirce's texts, then we need to pay
particular attention to the context of any given passage in a given
essay, and the context of a given essay as part of a larger projected
work or series of essays. What is more, we need to be clear about the
aims that are guiding Peirce's inquiries and the methods he is using
to answer the questions at hand. For these scholarly purposes, for
instance, it probably makes sense to focus on the diagrams that
Peirce actually used in his writings and refrain from developing our
own.
Having said that, if we are drawing on Peirce's ideas for our own
purposes for the sake of using them to engage in our own lines of
inquiry, then it may be productive to insert some of his ideas into
different frameworks (some of our own making) or to draw on different
diagrammatic systems or even to develop our own diagrams. If we don't
really understand what Peirce was doing with those ideas, then we run
the risk of misunderstanding them and using them poorly. As such,
many of us who want to put the ideas to work in our own inquiries
also want to ensure that we're doing a responsible job of trying to
understand what Peirce is doing with those ideas.
Edwina refers to an “'umbrella image' of the triad [1.347], which
is something like a three spoked umbrella: -
Links:
------
[1] http://www.unav.es/gep/SeminariodeTienne.html
-----------------------------
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 .
