> On Jan 7, 2024, at 9:10 AM, robert marty wrote:
>
> It's clear, then, that the composition of the two determinations gives rise
> to the triadic relation for Peirce. That's why I've underlined "therefore."
> Consequently, the formalization is simplified considerably, without any loss
> of
> On Jan 6, 2024, at 9:48 PM, John F Sowa wrote:
>
> Since nobody has found an EG drawn by Peirce to represent the sign relation,
In the 1870’s or early eighties, CSP referred to the ammonia molecule as a
symbol.
More precisely, pictorially, he demonstrated the three bonds between the three
List:
It was amusing to read theses historic responses to an issue that faded away in
most of the philosophical community and almost all the scientific community.
Edwinia broaches on current (and meaningful) aspects of the stipulations of
cognitive forms to objects of the external world.
>
Ben, List:
I share your concern about describing the *genuine *triadic relation of
mediating (or representing) with its three correlates (sign, object,
interpretant) as if it were reducible to dyadic relations of determining,
which could only be true if it were a *degenerate *triadic relation. It
Ben, list
I remember discussions on this list about that paragraph with follows the p.
271 warning in this text
“A Sign, or Representamen, is a First which stands in such a genuine triadic
relation to a Second, called its Object, as to be capable of determining a
Third, called its Interpretan
Helmut - I think one has to be clear about terms. Do you mean that the
Interpretant [ which is a relation not a thing-in-itself] becomes a new triad
or only a new Representamen?
My own view is that the Interpretant, which ‘holds and moulds’ information,
contributes to the formation of both a
Hi, Robert, all,
I wish a whole lot of us 15 or 20 years ago had noticed a paragraph that you
quote in your message,
/The conceptions of a First, improperly called an "object," and of a Second
should be carefully distinguished from those of Firstness or Secondness, both of which
are involv
Cécile and Helmut,
After sending my previous note, I thought of more examples for representing
sign relations in EGs -- including EGs that link together whatever graphs are
necessary to express anything.
I want to emphasize that I was inspired by some of Peirce's writings, but some
examples go
Cécile, List
I present here, in the most condensed form possible, the merits of a purely
algebraic formalization of Peirce's semiotics, entirely indexed to the
history of its development.
*How do we distinguish the correlates of a triadic sign?*
*How do we formalize the triadic sign?*
This q
