BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px; }
Jon - thanks for reminding us that 'building castles in the
stratosphere' is not an outline of the full reality of our universe.
That is - as I keep saying, theories without a ground in empirical
reality are 'castles in
Cf: Triadic Relations • Discussion 2
At:
http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2020/05/30/triadic-relations-%e2%80%a2-discussion-2/
To everything there is a season,
A time for every purpose under heaven:
A time for building castles in the stratosphere,
A time to mind the anti-gravs that keep us here.
R
Cf: Triadic Relations • 2
At: http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2020/05/24/triadic-relations-%e2%80%a2-2/
Examples from Semiotics
===
The study of signs — the full variety of significant forms of expression — in relation to all the affairs signs are
significant of, and in relati
Loet, All ...
Many thanks for the link to your paper! Just off-hand this looks like
the right ballpark for my long run interests but it will take me a few
more posts just dusting off home plate and chalking in some base lines.
Here's a paper Susan Awbrey and I wrote a while back giving some hin
List,
Loet Leydesdorff included PEIRCE-L among recipients of the following
message, but the message was held by the PEIRCE-L server in moderation,
since Mr. Leydesdorff is not subscribed to PEIRCE-L. I contacted him
and asked about his maybe joining the list or my maybe forwarding to the
lis
Cf: Triadic Relations • 1
At: http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2020/05/21/triadic-relations-%e2%80%a2-1/
Examples from Mathematics
=
For the sake of topics to be taken up later, it is useful to examine
a pair of triadic relations in tandem. We will construct two triadic
rel
re geometric (i.e., iconic) approaches in the existential
graphs.
--Jeff
Jeff Downard
Associate Professor
Department of Philosophy
NAU
(o) 523-8354
From: Jon Awbrey [jawb...@att.net]
Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2014 9:12 PM
To: Howard Pattee
Cc: biosemiot...@li
an in my response to
2.
Yours,
Jeff
Jeff Downard
Associate Professor
Department of Philosophy
NAU
(o) 523-8354
From: Howard Pattee [hpat...@roadrunner.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2015 2:34 PM
To: biosemiot...@lists.ut.ee
Cc: Peirce List
Subje
At 02:10 PM 2/3/2015, Jeffrey Brian Downard wrote:
So, to restate the point, relations involving representation don't
determine the things that are represented in the way that the laws
of fact determine the relations between existing facts, and neither
kind of determination is a matter of mere
du]
Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2015 12:10 PM
Cc: Peirce List; biosemiot...@lists.ut.ee
Subject: RE: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Triadic Relations
Hello Jon, Lists,
Two things:
1. As you prepare to explain in greater detail what Peirce is doing in this
1880 essay on the algebra of logic, let me ask if you are
he
development of his algebraic logic of relations.
--Jeff
Jeff Downard
Associate Professor
Department of Philosophy
NAU
(o) 523-8354
From: Jon Awbrey [jawb...@att.net]
Sent: Sunday, February 01, 2015 7:32 AM
To: John Collier
Cc: Peirce List
Subject: [PEI
( x [A] )
3) ( x [ (A) (B) ]
4) (x [ (A) B]
Jim W
2 out of 3 is at least half of 3:)
Date: Sun, 1 Feb 2015 00:01:23 -0500
From: jawb...@att.net
To: jimwillgo...@msn.com; peirce-l@list.iupui.edu
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] RE: Triadic Relations
http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/category/frankl
]
Jim W
2 out of 3 is at least half of 3:)
> Date: Sun, 1 Feb 2015 00:01:23 -0500
> From: jawb...@att.net
> To: jimwillgo...@msn.com; peirce-l@list.iupui.edu
> Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] RE: Triadic Relations
>
>
> http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/category/frankl-c
thin the full triad Sign.
Edwina
- Original Message -
From: "Jon Awbrey"
To: "John Collier"
Cc: "Peirce List"
Sent: Sunday, February 01, 2015 9:32 AM
Subject: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Triadic Relations
John, List,
To follow up on the question of the representa
7;sign triplet', being the
irreducible triplet containing the sign.
What do you think is best?
John
-Original Message-
From: Jon Awbrey [mailto:jawb...@att.net]
Sent: February 1, 2015 5:48 AM
To: Peirce List
Subject: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Triadic Relations
Sung, List,
I think it best to use the
> What do you think is best?
>
> John
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Jon Awbrey [mailto:jawb...@att.net]
> Sent: February 1, 2015 5:48 AM
> To: Peirce List
> Subject: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Triadic Relations
>
> Sung, List,
>
> I think it best to use the
e 'sign triplet', being the
irreducible triplet containing the sign.
What do you think is best?
John
-Original Message-
From: Jon Awbrey [mailto:jawb...@att.net]
Sent: February 1, 2015 5:48 AM
To: Peirce List
Subject: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Triadic Relations
Sung, List,
I think it best to
http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/category/frankl-conjecture/
;)
On 1/31/2015 8:29 PM, Jim Willgoose wrote:
Not Frank
=
Not Frank
Frank never felt he had a body
Not Frank
No big toe or little finger
Hand or foot
Not Frank
Who never felt he had an arm
Or a leg
And a though
Sung, List,
I think it best to use the word "sign" in a way that relates as
naturally as possible to its ordinary use. Of course we expect
a technical formalization of an informal concept to sharpen up
the root idea and cast new light on its meaning, but we do that
all the better to serve the or
Not Frank
Not Frank
Frank never felt he had a body
Not Frank
No big toe or little finger
Hand or foot
Not Frank
Who never felt he had an arm
Or a leg
And a thought of his body?
Not an image of his toe
nor a thought of his foot
No body, no image
No thought
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PIGbz9pU7yg
-
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.e
Yes! "Walking into Mordor" with sets of triples. And what is that 'like?'
Jim W
> Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2015 14:54:26 -0500
> From: jawb...@att.net
> To: jimwillgo...@msn.com; peirce-l@list.iupui.edu
> Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Triadic Relations
&
On 1/28/2015 6:32 PM, Jon Awbrey wrote:
Ben, Gary, List,
Just off the cuff, a few links on Determination:
http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/category/determination/
Regards,
Jon
In particular ...
http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2012/05/30/definition-and-determination-1/
http://stderr.org/piperma
Re: Jim Willgoose
At: http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/15578
Jim, List,
Ah, well, but you see, I continue to be concerned with applications.
The joys of smoke-ring-craft on our painted portico are many, but ...
One does not simply walk into Mordor with the armchair phan
ce-l@list.iupui.edu
> Subject: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Triadic Relations
>
> Re: John Collier
> JC: http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/15541
> JC: http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/15549
> JC: http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosoph
Re: John Collier
JC: http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/15541
JC: http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/15549
JC: http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/15557
JC: http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/15565
John
: January 30, 2015 12:15 PM
To: 'Benjamin Udell'
Subject: RE: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Triadic Relations
Thanks Ben. Your answer avoids the problems that I found with Gary’s answer.
For the reasons I discussed in that answer I am uncomfortable with the
“determination” talk, and I think I will avoid
Ben,
Thanks for providing this and the other materials in your previous message
on Peirce's use of determination in semiotic contexts. While I'm familiar
with much of it, it's all worth a fresh re-reading, and having it in an
(almost) single place is most helpful.
By the way, Nattiez is a French
Jeff, List,
A good place to begin again may be here:
“On the Algebra of Logic” [Am. J. Math. 3, 15–57 (1880)]
[3.] The Logic of Relatives
[3.1.] Individual and Simple Terms
[CP 3.214.]
Just as we had to begin the study of Logical Addition and Multiplication
by considering ∞ and 0, terms wh
h seems to me to be
determination.
So I am no more clear than before. It seems to matter where you
start. Or maybe there is a better notion of determination that
resolves this that I have missed.
Puzzled,
John
*>From:* Benjamin Udell [mailto:bud...@nyc.rr.com]
*Sent:* January 29, 2015 7:23
...@ukzn.ac.za]
Sent: 29-Jan-15 1:14 PM
To: Benjamin Udell; biosemiot...@lists.ut.ee; 'Peirce-L'
Subject: RE: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Triadic Relations
Ben, List,
I guess I have trouble making sense of the notion of determination here. I know
you are saying what Peirce says; that isn’t at is
Howard, lists,
For my part, your question is difficult for two reasons: 1. I don't know
much about biology, and 2. Peirce gets complicated when he considers the
semiotics of commands.
One could consider the protein as a dynamic interpretant from the
viewpoint of the protein. From the viewpoi
...@lists.ut.ee; 'Peirce-L'
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Triadic Relations
John C., Jeff, lists,
John, You're right, in the sense of 'ordered pair' (e.g., such that, in set
theory, _relation_ is defined as ordered pair), it's true that there's no
intuitive sense
open-ended.
Best,
John
-Original Message-----
From: Benjamin Udell [mailto:bud...@nyc.rr.com]
Sent: January 28, 2015 7:07 PM
To: biosemiot...@lists.ut.ee; 'Peirce-L'
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Triadic Relations
Jeff, Jon, lists,
I think that all that is required for an ordered triple, o
Gary R., lists,
I just noticed further discussion of semiotic determination in the fifth
or so paragraph in the linked section in
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sign_%28semiotics%29#Triadic_signs
This paragraph was my rewrite of a paragraph that explained signs in
terms of Peirce's article "Wha
Gary R., lists,
Thanks, Gary.
The discussion of semiotic determination at the Wikipedia Peirce article
were originally written by others including Jon Awbrey and then edited
by me. I've shown the URLs in the links in the footnotes so that they'll
be accessible in the I.U. archive.
http://en
Howard, List,
Computer problems of a recalcitrant sort are forcing me to work on my phone,
phor which my phingers are phar too phat and the auto-mis-speller is a constant
source of transcription travesty.
The pre-mutated text was:
“This is a common misconception of life as semiosis.”
I wasn'
At 08:50 PM 1/28/2015, Jon Awbrey wrote:
This is common misconception of life as semiotics.
HP: Without some evidence here, I would consider this misconception
only one opinion. Many others say life and semiotics are coextensive.
JA: A more pragmatic understanding of the process would regard
To: biosemiot...@lists.ut.ee; 'Peirce-L'
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Triadic Relations
Jeff, Jon, lists,
I think that all that is required for an ordered triple, or an ordering of any
length, is a rough notion of 'more' or 'less', for example an ordering of
pe
Howard, List,
This is common misconception of life as semiotics.
A more pragmatic understanding of the process would regard its object as the
infinitive “to live” while the protein is an interpretant sign of the double
helix sign.
Regards,
Jon
http://inquiryintoinquiry.com
> On Jan 28, 201
At 05:40 PM 1/28/2015, Gary Richmond wrote:
Ben wrote:
In the case of object, sign, interpretant, insofar as the object
determines the sign to determine the interpretant to be determined
by the object as the sign is determined by the object, the order of
semiotic determination is 'object, si
Ben, Gary, List,
Just off the cuff, a few links on Determination:
http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/category/determination/
Regards,
Jon
--
academia: http://independent.academia.edu/JonAwbrey
my word press blog: http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/
inquiry list: http://stderr.org/pipermail/inquiry/
is
Ben, lists,
Ben wrote:
In the case of object, sign, interpretant, insofar as the object
determines the sign to determine the interpretant to be determined by the
object as the sign is determined by the object, the order of semiotic
determination is 'object, sign, interpretant', although object,
Ben, Jeff, lists,
Not all ordered triples are ordered as specified by Peirce (as you have
nicely summarized) and hence capable of semiosis.
The simplest way to define Peirce's irreducible triad seems to me to be in
terms of the "commutative triangle" or "category".
In other words, there are two ki
Jeff, Jon, lists,
I think that all that is required for an ordered triple, or an ordering
of any length, is a rough notion of 'more' or 'less', for example an
ordering of personal preferences, and this is enough for theorems, for
example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow%27s_impossibility_the
problem until he
moved to more geometric (i.e., iconic) approaches in the existential graphs.
--Jeff
Jeff Downard
Associate Professor
Department of Philosophy
NAU
(o) 523-8354
From: Jon Awbrey [jawb...@att.net]
Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2014 9:12 P
(i.e., iconic) approaches in the existential graphs.
--Jeff
Jeff Downard
Associate Professor
Department of Philosophy
NAU
(o) 523-8354
From: Jon Awbrey [jawb...@att.net]
Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2014 9:12 PM
To: Howard Pattee
Cc: biosemiot...@lists.ut.ee; &#
t.net]
Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2014 9:12 PM
To: Howard Pattee
Cc: biosemiot...@lists.ut.ee; 'Peirce-L'
Subject: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Triadic Relations
Howard,
At this point we can can distinguish two forms
of decomposability or reducibility -- along with
their corresponding negations, ind
y a 'triad of representamen-object-interpretant'.
It's fairly self-explanatory. So I think we're reaching a point of
diminishing returns. I've a better idea, at least, of what you mean
than when we began.
Best, Ben
On 12/19/2014 1:36 PM, Edwina Taborsky wrote:
Than
Can we reduce religious ideas and their manifestations within social
institutions and their practice, in historical situations, to triadic
sign-theory? How about dynamics in sign-processes within societies etc.
kindly, markku sormunen
Lähetetty laitteesta Windowsin sähköposti
Can we reduce religious ideas and their manifestations within social
institutions and their practice, in historical situations, to triadic
sign-theory? How about dynamics in sign-processes within societies etc.
kindly, markku
Lähetetty laitteesta Windowsin sähköposti
Lähettäjä:
ect-interpretant'.
It's fairly self-explanatory. So I think we're reaching a point of
diminishing returns. I've a better idea, at least, of what you mean than
when we began.
Best, Ben
On 12/19/2014 1:36 PM, Edwina Taborsky wrote:
Thanks for your response, Ben. See mi
est for Xmas.
Edwina
- Original Message -
From: "Jon Awbrey"
To: "Edwina Taborsky"
Cc: "Howard Pattee" ; ;
"'Peirce-L'"
Sent: Friday, December 19, 2014 11:44 PM
Subject: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Triadic Relations
Re: Edwina Taborsky
At: ht
Jon, Edwina, list,
Jon wrote:
"Here I was following the convention of using upper (122014-1)
case letters to denote sets of objects and lower case
letters to denote objects regarded as individuals."
I did not know that such a convention existed in set theory. This seems a
useful convent
List,Those of you who have thought about the relations between Peirce's categoriology and the Christian Trinity may find the attached article by my late wife Marianne Shapiro of interest. Further information about her work can be found in Marianne Shapiro: A Catalogue Raisonné of Her Publications (
t;
Cc: ; "'Peirce-L'"
Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2014 4:32 AM
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Triadic Relations
At 10:04 PM 12/16/2014, Jon Awbrey wrote:
In the best mathematical terms, a triadic relation is a cartesian
product of three sets together with a specified subset
Re: Edwina Taborsky
At: http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/15166
Edwina,
Here I was following the convention of using upper case letters to denote sets
of objects and lower case letters to denote objects regarded as individuals.
In particular, I was using "R" to denote
Thanks for your response, Ben. See mine below.
- Original Message -
From: Benjamin Udell
To: Edwina Taborsky
Sent: Friday, December 19, 2014 1:09 PM
Subject: Re: [biosemiotics:7792] Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Triadic Relations
Edwina, list,
1) You wrote,
What I&#
Edwina, lists,
You wrote,
What I'm talking about is a biochemical process, where, let's say, a
cell (which is a cognitive system) ingests some external data
(water, nutrients) (Object) and, semiosically transforms that input
data, via its mediative habits-of-organization (the
Repr
t.iupui.edu ; Edwina Taborsky
Sent: Friday, December 19, 2014 6:17 AM
Subject: Re: [biosemiotics:7792] Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Triadic Relations
X can talk about a biochemical process only by some metalangue. Therefore X
represents his ideas about bioproc. or for example Peirces ideas by signs.
Re-present
ina Taborsky
Sent: Friday, December 19, 2014 6:17 AM
Subject: Re: [biosemiotics:7792] Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Triadic Relations
X can talk about a biochemical process only by some metalangue. Therefore X
represents his ideas about bioproc. or for example Peirces ideas by signs.
Re-present
7;. They are indeed, analytic
abstractions from the full triadic Sign. As I've said numerous times - these
'relations' can't exist per se on their own. But they certainly do 'exist' in
analysis - otherwise - we wouldn't be able to analyze the ten classes of
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
he same three
trichotomies and I use the same term as Peirce 'relation'. They are indeed,
analytic abstractions from the full triadic Sign. As I've said numerous times
- these 'relations' can't exist per se on their own. But they certainly do
'exist' i
. As
I've said numerous times - these 'relations' can't exist per se
on their own. But they certainly do 'exist' in analysis -
otherwise - we wouldn't be able to analyze the ten classes of Signs!
4) You wrote:
BEN: Your generally calling relatives o
Howard,
At this point we can can distinguish two forms
of decomposability or reducibility -- along with
their corresponding negations, indecomposability
or irreducibility -- that commonly arise.
1. Reducibility under relational composition P o Q.
All triadic relations are irreducible in thi
in particular cases they often do exist without the relations. Is
Jack the father of Jackson? Jack may not be a father at all, yet still exist
EDWINA: Jack, who is not the father of Jackson, does not exist within the
Relation of Being The Father of Jackson . But Jack exists only within
the other hand, makes it difficult for me to read you; I
> mean I sometimes have trouble following what you say.
>
> EDWINA: I'm using Peirce's terms.
>
> 5) You wrote:
> BEN: Yet in particular cases they often do exist without the relations.
> Is Jack the father of Jack
er to use the capital 'S' when referring to the
triad, is to differentiate it from the many times when Peirce refers
to the Representamen as the 'sign' (lower case). And often, he'll
refer to the whole triad as lower case 'sign' (see 2.243)!
Many thanks for yo
rentiate it from the many times when Peirce refers to the Representamen
as the 'sign' (lower case). And often, he'll refer to the whole triad as lower
case 'sign' (see 2.243)!
Many thanks for your triadic three cents worth. Much appreciated.
Edwina
- Original M
At 12:12 AM 12/17/2014, Jon Awbrey wrote:
What do I see in a picture like this?
```s``
``/```
o---The "R" brings to mind a triadic relation R, which collateral
knowledge tells me is a set of 3-tuples. What sort of
3-tuples? The picture sets a place for them by means the
place-names
Edwina, lists,
I haven't read the whole thread, but...
I think that it's true that many of us have discussed the sign relations
quasi- or pseudo-dyadically for convenience, for example, in the
_trikonic_ (2004) PowerPoint presentation, slide 42, discussing the
9-adic Sign Relations:
*as to t
Relations or my
focus on the individual nature of each ofo the three Relations (and I recall
Peirce's focus on their individual nature) is 'offensive' to some.
Edwina
----- Original Message -
From: "Jon Awbrey"
To: "Howard Pattee"
Cc: ; "
Howard,
This is where "collateral acquaintance with the object domain" comes in.
We use this or that species of diagrams to represent some of the properties,
hardly ever all of the properties, of the objects in some object domain. The
diagrams that Peirce devised to represent propositions abo
At 10:58 PM 12/16/2014, Jon Awbrey wrote:
Howard,
It's hard for someone trained as a graph theorist to make sense of
that question, since graphs, strictly speaking, are just dyadic (or
binary) relations.
HP: So if it makes any sense, you would say the answer to my question
is, No, by defini
Howard,
It's hard for someone trained as a graph theoristto make sense of that question,
since graphs, strictly speaking, are just dyadic (or binary) relations.
If we are more loosely speaking about the sorts of diagrams that Peirce called
"graphs" and used to represent propositions about arb
At 10:04 PM 12/16/2014, Jon Awbrey wrote:
In the best mathematical terms, a triadic relation is a cartesian
product of three sets together with a specified subset of that
cartesian product.
I know that. My question was: Is there a graph theory representation
of a triadic relation that does n
Howard,
In the best mathematical terms, a triadic relation is a cartesian product of
three sets together with a specified subset of that cartesian product.
Alternatively, one may think of a triadic relation as a set of 3-tuples
contained in a specified cartesian product.
It is important to
78 matches
Mail list logo
