Jon, lists, Jon initially wrote: "That last sentence was about sign relations. The first part was about [. . .] teridentity. Two different subjects."
The reason I pointed to the Pape article is that the trust of its argumentation is that these are *not* "two different subjects," or, rather, that teridentity should be seen as an essentially *dynamical* relationship *in consideration of semiosis*. . Yet I fully agree with your more recent statement that "the fact that 3-identity relations suffice to generate all the other k-identity relations is a fundamental fact of that theory. It goes without saying that such fundamental structures will find application in the theory of relations, and the theory of triadic sign relations in particular, but they are themselves cast in a more general sphere than semiotics itself," so that Pape's (and my) only claim is that teridentity is specially applied to semiotic analysis by Peirce. After 9 days I'm still on the road and away from my desk without my copy of *The Rule of Reason *and, so, without my annotated copy of Pape's article, while my e-CP is resident on my home computer. Still, I'll try to reconstruct the basic argument as I understand it employing snippets of the Pape excerpt I provided a link to in my earlier post. The argument goes something like this: As we all know, according to Peirce signs and, especially, symbols grow. One way of looking at this is his remark to the effect that the interpretant is the same (or similar) sign *or* that very sign "somewhat more developed" (I think that's his phrase). The representamen is, as firstness, a mere possibility capable of further development or generalization in some interpretant, that is, in its thirdness. In much the same sense that the mature oak tree is yet the same--but "somewhat more developed"--tree as the young sapling it 'was', so the more fully developed sign (take ancient Greek as an example Peirce employs) is that very sign having grown considerably over time. Pape's (and my) point is that *the life of the sign--*its growth--is *in futuro* (it's perhaps better to use that expression rather than 'teleological' as I did in my first post as being less burdened with negative connotations for some). So, Paper calls teridentity within a semiotic context "a dynamic identity," that is, one which "substantiates some relation of sequence that has a strict order" (Pape, 168): the mature oak does not--cannot--become a sapling; ancient Greek after Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle is forever changed. As Pape concludes, "Teridentity gives us a partial identity of an object representing as a part of it an object's *esse in futuro*." More important, at least to Peirce's argument for scholastic realism, "In this sense every representation of teridentity points to an object which is independent of its representation" (Pape, 178). In sum: "Peirce devised his semiotic by assuming a realist interpretation of the dynamical teridentity involved in the sign-relation" (note 22, 182-3). Best, Gary *Gary Richmond* *Philosophy and Critical Thinking* *Communication Studies* *LaGuardia College of the City University of New York* *C 745* *718 482-5690* On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 9:40 AM, Jon Awbrey <[email protected]> wrote: > Thread: > GR:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/14086 > JA:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/14122 > GR:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/14123 > JA:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/14124 > > Gary & All, > > The k-identity relations over a given domain X belong to the panoply of > fundamental structures in the general theory of relations, and the fact > that 3-identity relations suffice to generate all the other k-identity > relations is a fundamental fact of that theory. It goes without saying > that such fundamental structures will find application in the theory of > relations, and the theory of triadic sign relations in particular, but they > are themselves cast in a more general sphere than semiotics itself. > > Regards, > > Jon > > > -- > > academia: http://independent.academia.edu/JonAwbrey > my word press blog: http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/ > inquiry list: http://stderr.org/pipermail/inquiry/ > isw: http://intersci.ss.uci.edu/wiki/index.php/JLA > oeiswiki: http://www.oeis.org/wiki/User:Jon_Awbrey > facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/JonnyCache >
----------------------------- PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to [email protected] . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
