BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}John, list
What if one were to diagram your suggestion of: Sue gives child a
book - into
DO=book....which is then transformed from its identity and domain [a
bookstore], by the semiosic action of the triadic Sign, as held by the
Representamen-and-its action, which is: Sue-Who-Gives into
DI= book, which is now in a different domain and identity: that of
the Child [who is also a semiosic triad which includes a
Representamen].
Edwina
On Wed 17/04/19 10:45 AM , John F Sowa s...@bestweb.net sent:
Jeff, Edwina, and Gary R,
Peirce frequently said that he thinks in diagrams and that he has
considerable difficulty in translating his thoughts into words.
When Peirce or anybody else is doing diagrammatic reasoning, some
words may be helpful as explanations. But as soon as we are clear
about what the features of the diagram refer to, the words become
irrelevant. If the words create confusion, replace them with better
words. But when the diagram becomes clear, ignore the words.
JBD
> It is good to hear that we agree on something. It isn't yet clear
> to me where the agreements end and the disagreements start.
ET
> My understanding of 'medium' is more akin to a 'container' than
> a transformative process.
GR
> I see the Sign as a medium (not like a 'container' at all)
I believe that the words are the major obstacle. As an example,
see the attached diagram giveEG.gif, which shows two EGs for the
sentence "Sue gives a child a book". Then note how that diagram
can be explained in terms of the following quotation.
CSP
> Every triadic relationship involves three dyadic relationships
> and three monadic characters; just as every dyadic action involves
> two monadic characters. A monadic character involves nothing
dyadic
> or triadic; nor does a dyadic action involve anything triadic. But
> a triad always involves three dyads and three monads; and a dyad
> involves two monads. (CP 6.331)
Note the word 'involve'. It's an extremely vague word that could
be made more precise by using other words. But more precise words
are likely to cause endless disagreement, confusion, and debate.
Now consider the two EGs in giveEG.gif as illustrations of CP 6.331.
The EG on the left shows a triadic relationship named Gives, which
"involves" three dyadic relations named Agent, Recipient, and Theme
in the EG on the right.
In Both EGs, there are three monadic characters named Sue, Child,
and Book. In the EG on the right the triad named Gives has been
replaced by a teridentity, which represents some unnamed entity.
That entity is a hypostatic abstraction of the triad named Gives
in the EG on the left. For convenience, we could, if we wish,
name it Giving by adding a fourth line to the teridentity (thereby
making it a tetra-identity) and attaching the name Giving at the
other end of the line.
General principle: Agreeing to disagree never solves anything.
A better solution is to emphasize the diagrams and delete,
replace, or ignore any words that create disagreement.
John
-----------------------------
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 .
