Thread:
JA:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/14182
JA:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/14184
SJ:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/14187
JA:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/14194
JA:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/14196
SJ:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/14197
JA:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/14198
SJ:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/14200
Sung & All,
My sermon du jour, "Signers in the Hands of an Angly Hermenet", pays homage to
that preacher of manifestly more iconic sermons who admonished congregations
down through the ages about the very Razor's Edge of which you speak, but the
distance between Perice-diction and Perdition is all the Elbow Grace we need
between ☰ and ☷, so let us say "amen" and go in peace.
We presented an earlier version of Awbrey & Awbrey (1995) at a conference on
"Hermeneutics and the Human Sciences" in 1992. It was "well-received" and the
the reception grazed me with the impression, or illusion, that our audience was
hip to all the connections, distinctions, and nuances that we sought to convey.
More and more lately, however, I begin to suspect that I haven't a clue,
haven't the foggiest what is passing through a random receiver's mind when I
transmit these bits of diagrams and discursions by way of conveying what I have
in mine. Of course, the responsibility for communicating rests with me and
not my inert devices, but the longer we have the sorts of discussions we've been
having here the less inclined I am to believe that there are any sorts of signs
that "force" the mind along the intended tracks of connotation or denotation.
At any rate, I hope you see the larger problem that is looming here.
Regards,
Jon
Sungchul Ji wrote:
Jon wrote:
"For another thing, the technical use of the term "network" tends to lead
techies and others to read the line between O and R as referring to a dyadic
relation, and similarly for the other two lines, and to think that the
triadic relation denoted by "R" is somehow composed of or reducible to a
compound of those three dyadic relations. Down that road of dyadic
intentions the triadic sign relation goes all to hell."
Jon, the difference between hell and heaven seems only paper-thin. You can
go to hell by interpreting the diagram as a system of THREE DYADIC RELATIONS
or to heaven by interpreting the same as ONE TRIADIC RELATION, which I am
sure you are favoring. Of course, you can avoid going to hell if you only
PRESCIND the three dyadic relations without asserting that they are
synonymous with the triadic relation.
With all the best.
Sung
--
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 .
