BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px; }
Heh - but I'm not a fan of Hegel or indeed, of any utopian
idealism...which 'absolute truth' seems to me, to hover around.
I think that one can't get away from the realities of Firstness and
Secondness [entropy and diversity]...
Edwina
On Tue 12/12/17 3:38 PM , Jerry Rhee jerryr...@gmail.com sent:
Hi Edwina, list:
You said,
“Agreed - we shouldn't seek consensus. “
J
"it is unlikely that you are not mistaken but why such absolute
truth?"
In this way Hegel advances until he reaches the 'Absolute Idea',
which, according to him, has no incompleteness, no opposite, and no
need of further development. The Absolute Idea, therefore, is
adequate to describe Absolute Reality.
Best,
Jerry R
On Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 2:10 PM, Edwina Taborsky wrote:
Agreed - we shouldn't seek consensus. Not only is such closure
unscientific but we are not a large or diverse enough group to
substantiate a scientifically valid consensus.
I'm not against the triangle as such - as in, for example, that
Lady Welby classification triangle of the signs to which you refer.
As you say, this is a static image and not meant to imagize the
process of the Object-Representamen-Interpretant triad. My focus on
the 'spoke' is only to imagize the semiosic O-R-I process as am open
and networking interaction.
By the way - you write: " first, chance 'sporting' (1ns), then, the
possibility of new habit-formation (3ns), and finally the possibility
of a evolutionary, say, structural change (2ns).". Wouldn't you say
that before the habit-formation emerges, that there have to be
incidents in a mode of Secondness..which might vanish or might exist
long enough to interact with each other and form those habits?
I refer to 1.412 [A guess at the Riddle] - where Peirce writes: .."
there would have come something,.by the principle of Firstness...then
by the principle of habit there would have been a second
flash...."...But Secondness is of two types. consequently besides
flashes genuinely second to others, so as to come after them, there
will be pairs of flashes, or, since time is now supposed to have
developed, we had better say pairs of states, which are reciprocally
second, each member of the pair to the other. This is the first germ
of spatial extension. These states will undergo changes; and habits
will be formed of passing from certain states to certain others, and
of not passing from certain states to certain others"...
My reading of the above is that the FLASH [energy into matter?]
operates within its own Firstness and Thirdness [habit]..but the
matter that is formed in these flashes exists first, in Secondness
since this matter is both temporally and spatially existent. Then,
these 'states'/bits of matter will develop their own habits..and so
on.
Edwina
On Tue 12/12/17 2:42 PM , Gary Richmond gary.richm...@gmail.com [2]
sent:
Edwina, Mary, Gary f, list,
I can't say that I experience the horror that Edwina does with the
use of the triangle for specific analyses and, in point of fact,
Peirce himself uses is for certain purposes (see, for example, the
famous diagram of the classification of signs which he sent to Lady
Welby). Admittedly such an analysis of sign classes is relatively
static, but that is perhaps the point: that for particular purposes
of phenomenological, metaphysical, and semiotic tricategorial
analysis (although, perhaps, not in representing any particular
semiosis) that the triangle can be helpful.
But more than that, the triangle is quite useful when considering
movement through the categories (which paths of movement I've called
categorial vectors) where a bent arrow shows which of the 6 possible
vectors is in play.
(I have renamed the vector of analysis that of involution, although
both terms can be found in Peirce's paper, "The Mathematics of
Logic").
For example, taking the vector at the top of the diagram, Peirce
says in the N.A. that there are three stages to a discrete inquiry
(which involves what I call the vector of process) which begins with
a hypothesis (1ns), after which the implications of the hypothesis
are deduced for the purpose of devising an experimental testing of
the hypothesis (3ns), followed by the inductive testing itself (2ns).
This 'movement through the categories' is, in my opinion, best
illustrated by a bent arrow either within or outside of a triangle.
That the process doesn't end there is well illustrated by John Sowa's
'Knowledge Soup' diagram.
As I've noted here before, this process vector is the very same one
Peirce offers for biological evolution, namely, first, chance
'sporting' (1ns), then, the possibility of new habit-formation (3ns),
and finally the possibility of a evolutionary, say, structural change
(2ns). Again, if you see the process as triadic, it most certainly
doesn't *end* with that evolutionary adaptation. Yet, for me being
able to see the direction of the several vectors, comparing (as I
just did with inquiry and biological evolution), or contrasting them
(for example, contrasting both inquiry and evolution with the
semiotic path (the vector of determination) whereas the object (2ns)
determines the representamen (1ns) which determines the interpretant
3ns) can potentially reveal interesting new relations.
So, I agree with Gary F:
Yes, it’s a long-running debate whether we should use a triangle
or a three-spoke diagram. . . Personally I don’t think it matters
much which one you use, as long as you recognize that relation as
triadic.
And yet (1) it is especially important in, for example, considering
the -> representamen -> interpretant path that "you recognize that
relation as triadic" and, in the sense of infinite semiosis, neither
linear nor arriving at an end point) and (2) for many purposes the
three spoked diagram is indeed. preferable. But for some, especially
certain analytical purposes, the triangle proves quite helpful.
This is one of those areas where I think the decision as to which
(the triangle or the spoke) manner of diagramming a triadic relation
is most useful for her purposes ought be left up to the individual
inquirer, that we ought not insist on what is right or wrong (seek
consensus) for others in this matter.
Best,
Gary R
Gary RichmondPhilosophy and Critical ThinkingCommunication Studies
LaGuardia College of the City University of New York718 482-5690 [3]
On Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 12:47 PM, Edwina Taborsky wrote:
Mary, list - I fully agree with you. I have always been horrified -
and I mean the word - by the use of the triangle to portray the
semiosic triad. It is, in my view, so completely wrong, for it sets
up a closed linear path.
The' node connecting three lines of identity' [1.347] is, in my
view, the correct image, for as Peirce points out - it clearly shows
how such a node and its relations is networked almost to infinity
with other such formats. As you say - it shows the 'openness inherent
in triadic relations'.
Edwina -
On Tue 12/12/17 3:32 PM , Mary Libertin mary.liber...@gmail.com
sent:
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 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
[4]
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 [5] }{ 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
[6]http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce [7]-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 [8] . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to
PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu [9] with the line "UNSubscribe
PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at
http://www.cspeirce.com/ [10]peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
Links:
------
[1]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'tabor...@primus.ca\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
[2]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'gary.richm...@gmail.com\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
[3] http://webmail.primus.ca/tel:(718)%20482-5690
[4]
https://fromthepage.com/jeffdown1/c-s-peirce-manuscripts/ms-464-465-1903-lowell-lecture-iii-3rd-draught/display/13884
[5] http://gnusystems.ca/Lowell3.htm
[6] http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm
[7] http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce
[8]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'peirce-L@list.iupui.edu\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
[9]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'l...@list.iupui.edu\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
[10] 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 .
