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
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
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
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 reading the essay in
light of C.S. Peirce's reflections on his father's work on linear associative
algebra? In particular, in wh
]
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
Well, I am going to disagree with Jon. As John Collier points out, Peirce
was 'open' with his use of the term 'sign' and often used it to refer to
any one of the relations in the triad; i.e., to the symbol, to the icon, to
the index...and to the representamen and to the interpretant..and to the
Hi Jon,
What would you call the whole triadic relation in that case?
I have assumed that Peirce introduced 'representamen' to avoid the potential
confusion, but he isn't consistent by any means. (His care about terminology
was not always manifested.) I suppose we could use 'sign triplet', being
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
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
&
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
John,
I liked your poem. Your list of "locked-in" descriptors could probably be added
to, and then examined in the light of the mutual endangerment of the religious
authorities by the community of investigators. I believe in the open-ended use
of the basic definition of "sign" without too
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
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
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
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, 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
Could you construct a peircean artifact which can produce the concept DOG or
triadic sign DOG.
markku
Lähetetty laitteesta Windowsin sähköposti
Lähettäjä: mar...@hotmail.fi
Lähetetty: keskiviikko, 28. tammikuuta 2015 0:08
Vast.ott: Jeffrey Brian Downard
Kopio: biosemiot
Consider the concept 'Dog'. The knowledge about how the concept 'dog' is
exactly represented in brain is ZERO.
Concept is sign. So, how is peircean triadic sign represented in Brain in a
case 'DOG'. Is that sure that 'DOG' is triadic sign?
kindly, markku
Lähetetty laitteesta Windowsin
Hi Jon, Lists,
I've been thinking about the way you are characterizing triadic relations in
terms of ordered triples. For a while now, I've been wondering if there are
limits to such an approach that might make it difficult to explain what is
special about a genuinely triadic relation. Here a
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
Yes, Jon, that's a useful convention and I agree with it. The fact that you
don't understand the rest is certainly fine with me! I have to admit that
much of what you write is 'beyond my ken' but I still acknowledge your work
as of great value to those who do.
All the best for Xmas.
Edwina
---
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
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
ories, and, within the relations to the
object and the interpretant: 'the relation of the sign to its object...;
according as its Interpretant represents it...
That is, at least to me, what I do when I refer to the same three trichotomies
and I use the same term as Peirce 'relation
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
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
I think that bringing in other words in place of other words...doesn't
change the analysis.
Jon wrote, of his diagramme, which is quite clear,
The "R" brings to mind a triadic relation R, which collateral knowledge
tells me
is a set of 3-tuples.
BUT - calling the triad Sign (capital S) as a
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
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
55 matches
Mail list logo
