Jack, list
Good heavens - A cutting board example!
1] No, the Y shaped format of the Semiosic Sign is irreducible. It's
hard to, on a computer, show this.
2] But - take a DOT . Put the dot right at the intersection of the
three lines of the Y.
Now - think of this dot, as the ground site, the attractor site,
for THREE Relations.
3] a Relation is an informational interaction; it carries data.
Think of a Relation as a kind of connection link between one node and
another node.
4] Now ..look at the Y shape. Right at the centre of those three
spokes/Relations....that's the GROUND, that big Dot. [even though I
can't show it on this computer].
Notice - there are THREE lines/Relations coming out of that Centre
'dot'. You cannot reduce these three; otherwise, it's not a semiosic
sign.
5] The first Relation we'll consider is the vertical one. That's the
Representamen in itself. That's a mediating relation; it only
functions within the triad. It will be in a mode of 1ns, 2ns, 3ns.
Its function is to receive the input data, 'mediate it' according to
its stored laws, transform it'...and pass it on to the Interpretant
Relation.
6] The next Relation is that between the Representamen and the
Dynamic Object. That brings in the input data to that Representamen.
Also could be in a mode of 1ns, 2ns, 3ns. [icon, index, symbol]
7] the next Relation is that between the Representamen and the
Interpretant node. That relation is the result of the Representamen's
mediative actions on the input data. Also could be in a mode of 1ns,
2ns, 3ns.
Hope this helps a bit.
Edwina
On Thu 07/10/21 1:05 PM , JACK ROBERT KELLY CODY
jack.cody.2...@mumail.ie sent:
P {margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0;} Marty, Edwina, List,
Does the preference of the Y (over a triangle) essentially have to
do with the fact that if we remove one tail we have something which
resembles an index and if we remove all three tails, but leave the
point of the intersection (which I know would logically be contained
within each line, but am just speculating) then we have a dot of sorts
which corresponds to icon?
I have never really been able to make much headway with the
graphs... Also really good to see some discussions in past couple of
days.
Best
Jack
-------------------------
From: peirce-l-requ...@list.iupui.edu
on behalf of robert marty
Sent: Thursday, October 7, 2021 4:00 PM
To: tabor...@primus.ca
Cc: Peirce-L
; mahe3...@gmail.com
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce & Popper
*WARNING*
This email originated from outside of Maynooth University's Mail
System. Do not reply, click links or open attachments unless you
recognise the sender and know the content is safe. Margaretha,
Edwina, List
Edwina is absolutely right but she committed a small lapsus clami
.... it is not 1.327 but 1.347 that should be read and even 1.346
too...
"Peirce: CP 1.346 Cross-Ref:†† 346. 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.†1 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 Y 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, [emphasize mine]
C. Peirce: CP 1.347 Cross-Ref:†† 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 the three elements of Firstness, Secondness, and
Thirdness, there is nothing else to be found in the phenomenon "
Best regards, Robert Marty
Honorary Professor ; PhD Mathematics ; PhD Philosophy
fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Marty [1]
https://martyrobert.academia.edu/ [2]
Le jeu. 7 oct. 2021 à 16:11, Edwina Taborsky a écrit :
Margaretha
1] I believe I sent you a post, just after your original post to
this list, with a comment that the Peircean triad doesn't function as
a triangle but in a Y shape.
That is, the three nodal sites of Object-Representamen/Sign -
Interpretant do not interact with each other in a triangle format,
which is closed, but within that Y shape, where the three
interactions are OPEN and enable networking with other triads.
I think this is a vital point. Peirce himself showed the graph of
these Y shapes connecting with each other [1.327].
The thing about Peirce is that his analytic framework, made up of
that triadic Y interaction, which enables connections with other
'Y's...plus his three modal categories of Firstness, Secondness and
Thirdness [chance, immediate physical connection and reason-habits]
together enable a complex adaptive system that has the capacity to
self-organize and evolve.
2] I have used Popper to compare with Peirce - I think that
Popper's Third World has strong comparisons with Peirce's
Thirdness….he even sets it up as analogous with the biological
realm of knowledge. [See his Objective Knowledge]. And I think that
Popper's emphasis on openness, as in The Open Society, where he
rejects historicism and destiny for an essentially open and unknown
complexity of interactions -- is similar to Peirce. That is, Popper
accepts chance and reason as correlates [Firstness and Thirdness] in
the development of a society.
Edwina
On Thu 07/10/21 9:48 AM , Margaretha Hendrickx mahe3...@gmail.com
[4] sent:
List,
How many of you are working on -- or interested in -- studying the
connection between the philosophy of Karl Popper and Charles Peirce?
So far, I know of only one philosopher who has worked on this
intersection, the French philosopher, Christiane Chauvire. But there
must be others.
As a footnote, my professional background is in strategic
management, not in philosophy. I am interested in Peircean
philosophy, and especially his work on semiotic triangles, given that
I believe it provides some key answers to epistemological problems in
management research.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
► 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 [5] .
► To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message NOT to PEIRCE-L but to
l...@list.iupui.edu [6] with UNSUBSCRIBE PEIRCE-L in the SUBJECT LINE
of the message and nothing in the body. More at
https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/help/user-signoff.html [7] .
► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary
Richmond; and co-managed by him and Ben Udell.
Links:
------
[1] https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Marty
[2] https://martyrobert.academia.edu/
[3]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'tabor...@primus.ca\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
[4]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'mahe3...@gmail.com\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
[5]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'peirce-L@list.iupui.edu\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
[6]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'l...@list.iupui.edu\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
[7] https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/help/user-signoff.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 UNSUBSCRIBE PEIRCE-L in the SUBJECT LINE of the message and nothing in the
body. More at https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/help/user-signoff.html .
► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary Richmond; and
co-managed by him and Ben Udell.
