Gary, list, I prefer the use of Peirce’s Icon/index/symbol of a “genuine triadic relation”—“a node with three lines of identity” instead of a triangle. Ogden popularized the Peircean concept of triangle in an appendix in his book “The Meaning of Meaning”, and that triangle has been repeated over and over. I believe the node with three lines of identity makes immediate, diagrammatic sense and I believe shows forth the openness inherent in triadic relations. I’d like to investigate this—its historical context, literature on it, etc. Do you think I’m making sense, and /or can you point me in the right direction? Thanks.
Mary Libertin On Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 7:01 AM <g...@gnusystems.ca> wrote: > Continuing from Lowell Lecture 3.3, > > > https://fromthepage.com/jeffdown1/c-s-peirce-manuscripts/ms-464-465-1903-lowell-lecture-iii-3rd-draught/display/13884 > > > > I will sketch a proof that the idea of Meaning is irreducible to those of > Quality and Reaction. It depends on two main premisses. The first is that > every genuine triadic relation involves meaning, as meaning is obviously a > triadic relation. The second is that a triadic relation is inexpressible by > means of dyadic relations alone. Considerable reflexion may be required to > convince yourself of the first of these premisses, that every triadic > relation involves meaning. There will be two lines of inquiry. First, all > physical forces appear to subsist between pairs of particles. This was > assumed by Helmholtz in his original paper on the Conservation of Forces. > Take any fact in physics of the triadic kind, by which I mean a fact which > can only be defined by simultaneous reference to three things, and you will > find there is ample evidence that it never was produced by the action of > forces on mere dyadic conditions. Thus, your right hand is that hand which > is toward the *east,* when you face the *north* with your head toward the > *zenith.* Three things, east, west, and up, are required to define the > difference between right and left. Consequently chemists find that those > substances which rotate the plane of polarization to the right or left can > only be produced from such active substances. They are all of such complex > constitution that they cannot have existed when the earth was very hot, and > how the first one was produced is a puzzle. It cannot have been by the > action of brute forces. For the second branch of the inquiry, you must > train yourself to the analysis of relations, beginning with such as are > very markedly triadic, gradually going on to others. In that way, you will > convince yourself thoroughly that every genuine triadic relation involves > thought or *meaning.* Take, for example, the relation of *giving.* A > *gives* B to C. This does not consist in A's throwing B away and its > accidentally hitting C, like the date-stone, which hit the Jinnee in the > eye. If that were all, it would not be a genuine triadic relation, but > merely one dyadic relation followed by another. There need be no motion of > the thing given. Giving is a transfer of the right of property. Now right > is a matter of law, and law is a matter of thought and meaning. I there > leave the matter to your own reflection, merely adding that, though I have > inserted the word “genuine,” yet I do not really think that necessary. I > think even degenerate triadic relations involve something like thought. > > The other premiss of the argument that genuine triadic relations can never > be built of dyadic relations and of Qualities is easily shown. In > Existential Graphs, a spot with one tail —X represents a quality, a spot > with two tails —R— a dyadic relation. Joining the ends of two tails is also > a dyadic relation. But you can never by such joining make a graph with > three tails. You may think that a node connecting three lines of identity is > not a triadic idea. But analysis will show that it is so. I see a man on > Monday. On Tuesday I see a man, and I exclaim, “Why, that is the *very* > man I saw on Monday.” We may say, with sufficient accuracy, that I directly > experienced the identity. On Wednesday I see a man and I say, “That is the > same man I saw on Tuesday, and consequently is the same I saw on Monday.” > There is a recognition of triadic identity; but it is only brought about as > a conclusion from two premisses, which is itself a triadic relation. If I > see two men at once, I cannot by any such direct experience identify both > of them with a man I saw before. I can only identify them if I regard them, > not as the *very* same, but as two different manifestations of the same > man. But the idea of *manifestation* is the idea of a sign. Now a sign is > something, A, which denotes some fact or object, B, to some interpretant > thought, C. > > 347. It is interesting to remark that while a graph with three tails > cannot be made out of graphs each with two or one tail, yet combinations of > graphs of three tails each will suffice to build graphs with every higher > number of tails. > > And analysis will show that every relation which is *tetradic,* > *pentadic,* or of any greater number of correlates is nothing but a > compound of triadic relations. It is therefore not surprising to find that > beyond these three elements of Firstness, Secondness, and Thirdness, there > is nothing else to be found in the phenomenon. > > > > http://gnusystems.ca/Lowell3.htm }{ Peirce’s Lowell Lectures of 1903 > > > -- null
----------------------------- 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 .
