Re: [PEIRCE-L] Genuinely triadic relations, laws and symbols

Jeff, List: I am not sure whether you saw my response below to your post on Thursday; but in any case, I would like to expand on the EG that I provided in a previous post for the relations among a Sign, its Object, and a series of Interpretants. At that time, I was emphasizing that an Interpretan

Re: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Genuinely triadic relations, laws and symbols

Edwina, List: Fair enough; more generally, a gift is a medium for the communication of *ownership *or *possession *from one person to another. In any case, the EGs straighforwardly demonstrate that the gift corresponds to the Sign (or Representamen) as a *correlate*, while the act of giving corre

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Genuinely triadic relations, laws and symbols - and the meaning of Chemical Bedrocks.

List, Helmut: > On Apr 19, 2019, at 3:08 PM, Helmut Raulien wrote: > > Jerry, list, > > instead of assuming different kinds of mathematics, I rather think, that, > additionally to the rules of mathematics, in nature sciences, constants and > axioms play a role, which are not deduced by mathe

Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Genuinely triadic relations, laws and symbols

Edwina, List: ET: ... I think that your outline is more of a Shannon communication system than a semiosic system. It is *Peirce's *outline--I quoted him directly--so this allegation is patently false. ET: In other words, I don't see the point of defining a sign/representamen as only something

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Genuinely triadic relations, laws and symbols

Language is not organic chemistry. Here is Ev's paper on the language network: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4091770/ (one of them) Here is Steve's paper: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/03/190327134547.htm

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Genuinely triadic relations, laws and symbols

Dan, List: > On Apr 19, 2019, at 1:20 PM, Dan Everett wrote: > > Also Steve Piantadosi (Berkeley Psychology) has shown that all the memory > needed for much of language is about 1.5 megabytes, a small amount, with the > amount of memory required for syntax neglible, more evidence that symbols

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Genuinely triadic relations, laws and symbols

The most common word order among the world's 7000+ languages is Sub Obj Verb. But I have worked on languages in the Amazon that are SOV, VSO, VOS, OSV, SVO, and OVS. I have written full grammars of two of them. A propositions can serve as predicates of higher propositions in some languages. Synt

Re: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Genuinely triadic relations, laws and symbols

BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px; }Jon, list You wrote: "Notice, though, that the book corresponds to the Sign, rather than to either the Object or the Interpretant--which makes sense, since a book is a medium for the communication of a text from

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Genuinely triadic relations, laws and symbols

By the way, predicates in natural languages can vary for cultural reasons. For example, "to give" in most languages is triadic, but it is dyadic in Amele of New Guinea (as I discuss in Language: The Cultural Tool). Dan > On Apr 19, 2019, at 1:40 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt > wrote: > > Edwina, List

Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Genuinely triadic relations, laws and symbols

Edwina, List: Giving and representing/mediating are both *triadic *relations, but they are not the *same *triadic relation; in fact, they are not even *isomorphic *triadic relations. I suppose that instead we can compare giving to *determining*, which better reflects "the flow of causation" in se

Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Genuinely triadic relations, laws and symbols

BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px; }Jon, list 1] My point is that the "f" function [Representamen] is a generality and thus, is capable of producing a different Interpretant "y" each time. Of course, if the function adheres to one set of laws and is

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Genuinely triadic relations, laws and symbols

Edwina, List: I appreciate the explanation, but the struggle that I continue to have with this approach is that in my mind, mathematical functions are *static*, even when used to model phenomena that are *dynamic*. The equation f(x)=y entails that given the same input, the function will *always *

Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Genuinely triadic relations, laws and symbols

BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px; }John, list What if one were to diagram your suggestion of: Sue gives child a book - into DO=bookwhich is then transformed from its identity and domain [a bookstore], by the semiosic action of the tria

Aw: Re: Re: Re: Re: RE: [PEIRCE-L] Genuinely triadic relations, laws and symbols

Jon, list,   Thank you for clarifying! I admit having made mistakes. I think to say a thing consists of matter, form, function means, that the function it has is a function for the reality as a whole, like with a knife it is for cutting. If somebody uses a knife for driving a screw, it is a two

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Genuinely triadic relations, laws and symbols

John, List: JFS: But I can't recall any case where Peirce used the word 'part' to talk about the meaning of a symbol. Do you know of any examples? Of course--for one thing, he held that *every Proposition* has parts. CSP: But the only kind of sign whose object is necessarily existent is the

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Genuinely triadic relations, laws and symbols

Jeff, List: It looks like you intended your most recent message, which you sent only to me, for the entire List; so I am replying on-List with your post appended below accordingly. JD: Objects have parts. As the second correlate in a thoroughly genuine triadic relation, two of the parts of the

Re: Re: Re: Re: RE: [PEIRCE-L] Genuinely triadic relations, laws and symbols

Helmut, List: Your suspicion of a "creationist" agenda is unfounded--"involution" is Peirce's own *logical *term for the sequence from 3ns to 2ns to 1ns, which is also the order of *analysis*. As the different prefixes indicate, it is simply the *opposite *of the order of evolution, which is from

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Genuinely triadic relations, laws and symbols

Neal, List: Great question. I have no inside information, but the Chronological Edition has been stuck at 1892 for almost ten years now, while the Project staff has apparently been focused mainly on technology development rather than actually editing and publishing Peirce's writings. Browsing th

Re: Aw: Re: Re: Re: RE: [PEIRCE-L] Genuinely triadic relations, laws and symbols

Helmut, list I agree. A 'thing consists of matter, form and function'. Or, in the same order, Object-Interpretant-Representamen. The key power of Peircean semiosis is its acknowledgment that matter and thought is dynamic and networked rather than static and isolate, i.e

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Genuinely triadic relations, laws and symbols

What’s the state of the Peirce Edition Project, started up with NEH support? Many thanks. From: Dan Everett Reply-To: Dan Everett Date: Wednesday, April 17, 2019 at 7:49 PM To: Ben Udell Cc: "peirce-l@list.iupui.edu" Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Genuinely triadic relations, laws a

Aw: Re: Re: Re: RE: [PEIRCE-L] Genuinely triadic relations, laws and symbols

Supplement: But I still have the following suspicion: To involve means to contain, the noun is involvement, and not involution, which I suspect to be a creationist antithesis to evolution. So, if a sign involves the triadic relation, it "is" it in the sense of adjective, like to say a flower is bl

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Genuinely triadic relations, laws and symbols

Dan, Gary R., Ben, List: The Harvard page for the Peirce Papers states right at the top, "More than 100,000 pages of working notes and drafts by the influential philosopher and scientist." Only about half of these are included in t

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Genuinely triadic relations, laws and symbols

Thanks very much, Ben. If it is 60% drawings, then we are down to 10 million words. I suspect the answer is somewhere in the middle of 25 and 10 million. Dan > On Apr 17, 2019, at 7:43 PM, Ben Udell wrote: > > Gary, Dan, > > The 100,000-page estimate comes from Joe Ransdell. > > The manu

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Genuinely triadic relations, laws and symbols

Gary, Dan, The 100,000-page estimate comes from Joe Ransdell. The manuscript material now (1997) comes to more than a hundred thousand pages. These contain many pages of no philosophical interest, but the number of pages on philosophy certainly number much more than half of that. Als

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Genuinely triadic relations, laws and symbols

Dan, List, Thanks, Dan. I had a feeling that if anyone would take up that challenge--and meet it--it would be you. I would have expected a very large number of words, but not *that* large a number! Btw, how did you come to assume 100,000 pages? Have I seen that estimate somewhere before? OK, here

Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Genuinely triadic relations, laws and symbols

BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px; }Gary R, list Thanks for your post and comments - and for your reference to Rene Thom, who was one of the first I ever read on complexity and catastrophe theory. And enjoy the Milford event - I'm sure it w

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Genuinely triadic relations, laws and symbols

A back of the envelope calculation is that CSP wrote app 25 million words. I assume 10 pages at 25 lines to a page 10 words to a line. But in that neighborhood. Some published papers were much denser some handwritten pages much less. Dan Sent from my iPhone > On Apr 17, 2019, at 16:47,

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Genuinely triadic relations, laws and symbols

John, Edwina, Jeff, List, John wrote: JS: Peirce frequently said that he thinks in diagrams and that he has considerable difficulty in translating his thoughts into words. I'm not sure how frequently he said it, but Peirce certainly did say it, and no doubt he thought essentially in diagrams. T

Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Genuinely triadic relations, laws and symbols

BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px; }John, list I agree. All thought is in images/diagrams - and translating these into words is difficult. And then, having others insist that one must use these words and only these words - and thus, ignore the image

Aw: Re: Re: Re: RE: [PEIRCE-L] Genuinely triadic relations, laws and symbols

Jon, list,   Ok then, I guess, to "involve" does not mean to "contain" in the sense of composition, as I had thought.   Best regards, Helmut   16. April 2019 um 23:05 Uhr "Jon Alan Schmidt"   Helmut, List:   On the contrary, the first quote below does not corroborate the view that the

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Genuinely triadic relations, laws and symbols

Jeff, Edwina, and Gary R, Peirce frequently said that he thinks in diagrams and that he has considerable difficulty in translating his thoughts into words. When Peirce or anybody else is doing diagrammatic reasoning, some words may be helpful as explanations. But as soon as we are clear about w

Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Genuinely triadic relations, laws and symbols

oh, I almost forgot this relevant part: and in future years I am confident that you will recur to these thoughts and find that *you have more to thank me for than you could understand at first*. Best, J On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 9:35 PM Jerry Rhee wrote: > Dear Stephen, list, > > A certain maxim

Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Genuinely triadic relations, laws and symbols

Dear Stephen, list, A certain maxim of Logic which I have called Pragmatism has recommended itself to me for divers reasons and on sundry considerations. Having taken it as my guide in most of my thought, I find that as the years of my knowledge of it lengthen, my sense of the importance of it pre

Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Genuinely triadic relations, laws and symbols

I understand the omni aspect of Peirce's sense of semiotics - but it really needs to be made the basis of global pedagogy with some interpretation of how it all fits together that ordinary folk can understand. amazon.com/author/stephenrose On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 7:39 PM Edwina Taborsky wrote:

Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Genuinely triadic relations, laws and symbols

BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px; }Stephen, list Peirce used the terms 'genuine' and 'degenerate' to refer to what we might define as 'pure' and 'mixed' categories. I don't think that he confined his semiosis to human beings. I think that

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Genuinely triadic relations, laws and symbols

Good to see intentionality and thirdness. Is genuineness his term? I would like to assume that Peirce built a philosophy whose end is indeed intention and that the primary intenders are human beings. Is there any instance where Peirce suggests this? If so is the intention agapaic? amazon.com/aut

Re: Re: Re: RE: [PEIRCE-L] Genuinely triadic relations, laws and symbols

Helmut, List: On the contrary, the first quote below *does not* corroborate the view that the Sign *itself *is a triad; i.e., a triadic relation--especially once we examine the entire passage. CSP: Conversely, every thought proper involves the idea of a triadic relation. For every thought prope

Re: Re: RE: [PEIRCE-L] Genuinely triadic relations, laws and symbols

Edwina, List, You wrote: ET: I guess we'll just have to do our usual 'agree to disagree'. Apparently we will, as you wrote: ET: I also don't see the sign/Representamen as a 'medium' Please see my note just sent to Helmut. I concluded: A medium of communication is something, a *Sign*, which

Re: Re: RE: [PEIRCE-L] Genuinely triadic relations, laws and symbols

Helmut, List, Helmut asked: "is a sign a medium for the communication, or the communication itself?" Peirce writes: 1906 | The Basis of Pragmaticism | EP 2:390-1 …medium of communication is a species of medium, and a medium is a species of third. [—] A medium of communication is something, *A*

Aw: Re: Re: RE: [PEIRCE-L] Genuinely triadic relations, laws and symbols

Edwina, Gary, list: Here are (from Commens Dictionary) two quotes, the first corrobates Edwinas view, and the second Garys. In the first quote the sign involves the relation, in the second not ("for the purpose", not "with the purpose"). -- 1903 | C.S.P.'s Lowell Lectur

Re: Aw: Re: RE: [PEIRCE-L] Genuinely triadic relations, laws and symbols

Helmut, list I actually include the DO within the semiosic function, because the IO couldn't exist without that DO. I can send you some of my publications. Edwina On Tue 16/04/19 4:05 PM , "Helmut Raulien" h.raul...@gmx.de sent: Edwina, list, That looks

Re: Re: RE: [PEIRCE-L] Genuinely triadic relations, laws and symbols

BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px; }Gary R, list I guess we'll just have to do our usual 'agree to disagree'. I also don't see the sign/Representamen as a 'medium', but as an action of mediation. It mediates between the O and I - and 'bring

Aw: Re: RE: [PEIRCE-L] Genuinely triadic relations, laws and symbols

Gary, list,   is a sign a medium for the communication, or the communication itself? I thought one might replace "a sign mediates between" with "a sign is the mediation between", and mediation is a function, so a sign is a function. That would mean that there is a distinction between the sign an

Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Genuinely triadic relations, laws and symbols

BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px; }John, list I fully agree - and intentionality includes the action/concept of 'anticipation', which is an integral process of Mind. As such, the Sign [understood as an irreducible triad of interaction of d

Re: RE: [PEIRCE-L] Genuinely triadic relations, laws and symbols

Jon, List, You wrote: JAS: Personally, I do not find the notion of calling a Sign a function any more palatable than calling it a relation. *A Sign is not composed of itself, its Object, and its Interpretant in any way; and it is certainly not like a mathematical function that merely transforms

Aw: Re: RE: [PEIRCE-L] Genuinely triadic relations, laws and symbols

Edwina, list,   That looks very reasonable to me. I think I have to get concerned about mathematic symbolization. How do I write "A is the function of B for C", and so on. In "R(O)=I", is O and I only the immediate O and I? Can I look somehow on some of your papers?   Best, Helmut   16. Apr

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Genuinely triadic relations, laws and symbols

Folks, The clearest test for a genuine Thirdness is the presence of some intentionality -- of some animate being or of some law of nature. I like the examples Peirce cited in CP 1.366 below. General principle: Intentionality by some animate agent is always a genuine Thirdness. That agent may b

Re: RE: [PEIRCE-L] Genuinely triadic relations, laws and symbols

Gary F., Helmut, List: As should be evident from my reply to Jeff, I agree with Gary that there is still no warrant for conflating the Sign as a *correlate *with the triadic *relation* that connects it with its Object and its Interpretant. I also agree with him that analyzing an individual Instan

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Genuinely triadic relations, laws and symbols

Jeff, List: JD: First, let me point out that I believe a number of arguments were offered in the post. The simplest argument was a mere colligation of separate points. The richer argument, I think, was explanatory in character. By "separate points" in this context, I assume that you mean separa

Re: Aw: RE: [PEIRCE-L] Genuinely triadic relations, laws and symbols

Helmut, list - I agree with you that the Sign [the full triad of O-R-I] is a function. I've been giving conference papers and publishing on just that for many years. But I don't think that the Sign-as-Function operates by addition, which would reduce the actions to arithmetic, but by m

Aw: RE: [PEIRCE-L] Genuinely triadic relations, laws and symbols

    Supplement: But I prefer, that the term "functional composition" means, that a function of something is composed of the functions of other things for the something, so it would be ok to say "a sign functionally consists of S,O,I". It means, that f(S) = f(S) + f(O) + f(I).  I think it is always

Aw: RE: [PEIRCE-L] Genuinely triadic relations, laws and symbols

List,   To solve this problem with "whole" or "composed of", I propose three kinds of composition: C. from traits (1ns), spatiotemporal c. (2ns), and functional composition (3ns). The kind of composition we are talking about is functional c.:   The function of something is composed of the func

RE: [PEIRCE-L] Genuinely triadic relations, laws and symbols

Jeff, Even if we take your view that a sign (e.g. an argument) is a whole composed of three parts, and that the parts are the correlates of a genuine triadic relation, you can’t say that the whole is that triadic relation — which, I take it, is what you were trying to show — unless you are givi