Edwina wrote:
" . . . focus seems only to be one whether to call them: (121814-1)
a Relation or an irreducible set of 3 Relations."
Peirces' triadic relation satisfies the commutativity condition in that O
determines S and S determines I in such a manner that I is indirectly
determined by S
I will ponder that. My own sense is that whatever Peirce may have meant his
triadic structure functions consciously to generate expressions and actions
that would not exist were the process binary, allowing only for an either
or and or. It seems to me that however a sign is generated it is not a
fu
I think Peirce felt we feel our way to the truth, all the way from the tiny
metaphors of symbolic process thru the big metaphors we construct
conciously. Freedom of choice comes in thru imagination, which I don't
think Peirce addressed much, but we can still feel our various imaginings,
& pick the
Edwina wrote:
" . . . because the only thing that can function that way, (7771-1)
is the whole triad, the Peircean Sign (capital S)."
Not true.
According to Peirce (see [biosemiotics:7797] for reference),
"Sinsign can act as a sign even without an interpretant (7771-2)
and qualisi
At 02:57 PM 12/17/2014, Gary Richmond wrote:
From the operational criterion comes the basic notion, expressed in
the Syllabus (1903) that iconic signs are the only kind of sign
which gives information . . .
But Peirce also said: "the idea embodied by an icon . . . cannot of
itself convey any
Hi,
I forgot to add "signless" in the first column of Table A. So, according
to QMS, there are four categories of signs -- qualisign, sinsign and
legisign as usual and the new member "signless" that is thought to be the
source of all the other signs.
With all the best.
Sung
> Edwina wrote:
>
Thanks for your comments, Ben. See mine below, but I think the post is getting
messy and incomprehensible with the various post/responses all mixed up. You
are probably the only one who will read it and I hope you can figure it out.
I'll try colour-coding my current responses.
1) EDWINA: No-
Edwina, lists,
1) >>> EDWINA: I prefer the term 'relation' because it implies (at
least to me) the idea of active interaction, while the 'stands
as/for/to' implies (at least to me) the idea of static, mechanical
cut-and-paste
[End quote]
>> BEN: Then substitute 'represents' fo
Sub-Sub-Thread:
HP:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/15155
JA:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/15160
HP:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/15161
JA:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/15162
HP:http://
