Jeff, List: JD: In the Prolegomena, Peirce uses the modal tincture of Fur as a means of expressing intentions in the gamma system. The pattern of ermine (or the color yellow), is used to represent iconically that the area shaded expresses an intention on the part of the agent (see Don Roberts, 92-102).
Yes, but the attachment of any EG to the *surface *on which it is scribed does not constitute an increase of its valency. "A surrenders B" and "A acquires D" are *dyadic *relations, whether their EGs appear on Metal (actuality) or Fur (intention). A *triadic *relation is one that requires a Spot with *three *Pegs to represent it. Again, what third correlate would you identify in order to treat these relations as triadic? JD: The analysis he provides shows that Peirce was thinking of a transfer involving money and a contract, which means that the transfer was not simultaneous. Barter, as a form of exchange, is often simultaneous. When it is, that makes the exchange considerably simpler in character. A contract is not *essential *to the relation of selling, and my understanding is that time has no bearing on *logical *relations. I still have a hard time seeing how bartering is any *simpler *than selling, other than the peculiar aspect of money being transferred rather than another item. JD: It does not follow from the simple fact that the analyses involve *entia rationis* that such creations of the mind may not represent something real. I did not suggest otherwise. My point was that the *number *of different relations that we obtain from analysis is *arbitrary *to some degree, because we are using something *discrete *to represent something that in itself is *continuous*. JD: Notice how Peirce puts the point. In a tetradic relation, there are at most 10 triadic relations involved, whereas in a pentadic relation, there are at most 100 triadic relations involved. Peirce *asserted *these claims, but he certainly did not *demonstrate *either of them. If introducing the *non-essential* element of a contract is necessary in order to analyze the tetradic relation of selling into six triadic relations, what prevents us from introducing any number of *additional *non-essential elements in order to analyze it into more than ten? On the other hand, I ask yet again--what *essential *element is omitted by analyzing selling into *only four* triadic relations, two of giving and two of exchanging? Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt On Sat, May 11, 2019 at 12:42 PM Jeffrey Brian Downard < jeffrey.down...@nau.edu> wrote: > Jon S, List, > > JD: In order to interpret "μ is the surrender by A of B" and "ν is the > acquisition by A of D" as triadic and not merely dyadic relations, my hunch > is that he is considering these actions as intentional in character. > > > JS: Maybe, but then how would you restate them as *explicitly *having > three correlates, perhaps by presenting each as an EG? And would they then > be *genuine *or *degenerate* triadic relations? > > > JD: The relation of surrendering, considered as formally ordered dynamical > dyadic relation, is a relation that can be expressed in the beta system of > the EG. If μ is understood to involve an intention on the part of A, then > it can't be expressed in those terms. In the Prolegomena, Peirce uses the > modal tincture of Fur as a means of expressing intentions in the gamma > system. The pattern of ermine (or the color yellow), is used to represent > iconically that the area shaded expresses an intention on the part of the > agent (see Don Roberts, 92-102). Understanding the character of the > triadic relations that hold between the areas that are patterned > or shaded one way to the other areas of the graph is not a simple matter. > Hence the difficulties of sorting out the modal relations using the > tinctures (or colors). In his monograph, Don Roberts attempts to revise the > tinctures in order to overcome some of the concerns that Peirce raised > about this manner of expressing modal relations in the gamma system. Given > the complexities involved, I won't try to answer the question of whether > the triadic relations involved are genuine or degenerate in some > respects. > > JD: The case that you cite of an object being sold involves a transfer of > money and a contract. The simpler case of exchange as barter with no > contract is illustrative of how other kinds of relations may be involved > when more general things, such as property laws and legal systems, are > governing the intentional acts. > > > JS: There is no reference to a contract in the initial proposition, "S > sells T to B for M"; and it is *isomorphic *with the allegedly simpler > case, "A gives up B to C in exchange for D." In other words, it seems to > me that "sells X for Y" is *logically *the same relation as "gives up X > in exchange for Y." Do you disagree? Again, is an essential element > somehow omitted if we analyze the tetradic relation of selling (or > bartering) as a combination of only four triadic relations, two of giving > (genuine) and two of exchanging (degenerate)? > > JD: The initial description is underdetermined. The analysis he > provides shows that Peirce was thinking of a transfer involving money and a > contract, which means that the transfer was not simultaneous. Barter, as a > form of exchange, is often simultaneous. When it is, that makes the > exchange considerably simpler in character. That is one reason that > exchange by barter may have preceded the development of formal systems of > law. > > JD: How many triadic relations are involved in this process of a young > child learning? Well, it appears to grow according to a power law. As such, > it grows into a multitude that exceeds any system of numbers that is > numerable or even any system that is abnumerable. > > > JS: Of course it does, because *real *semeiosis is *continuous*--it is > not *composed *of discrete relations (prescinded predicates) and their > discrete correlates (abstracted subjects) as expressed in definite > propositions; those are all *artificial *creations of thought for the > purposes of description and analysis. > > JD: It does not follow from the simple fact that the analyses involve *entia > rationis* that such creations of the mind may not represent something > real. Notice how Peirce puts the point. In a tetradic relation, there are *at > most* 10 triadic relations involved, whereas in a pentadic relation, > there are *at most* 100 triadic relations involved. It does not follow > from the claim that semiosis is continuous that there are, somehow, an > unlimited number of triadic relations involved. Inserting a real triadic > relation where, before, one was only a potentiality, can be done any number > of times. In doing so, however, you've made a new relation. > > Yours, > > Jeff > >>
----------------------------- 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 .
