Jon, List: It appears to me that your distinction is one that needs to carefully examined.
Please cite the reference texts. Clearly, the triadic triad is not a mathematical partition. Period. Full Stop. End of Narrative. Why anyone would thin so is beyond my comprehension. Your concerns about trichotomies in CSP texts does deserve another look. In other words, I concur with Jeff's post. Cheers Jerry On Oct 1, 2014, at 9:44 PM, Jon Awbrey wrote: > Thread: > JA:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/14286 > JA:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/14290 > GF:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/14313 > JA:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/14350 > JA:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/14351 > JA:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/14352 > JA:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/14359 > GF:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/14383 > JLRC:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/14388 > JA:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/14394 > JA:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/14409 > JA:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/14422 > > JLRC: These questions penetrate to the heart of > >>>>> CSP's rhetorical stance as illustrated by > >>>>> the triadic triad: > >>>>> > >>>>> qualisign, sinsign, legisign, > >>>>> icon, index, symbol, > >>>>> rhema, dicisign, argument. > >>>>> > >>>>> If these terms are to form a coherent pattern of inferences, > >>>>> is it necessary that the terms themselves, under different > >>>>> situations and constraints, be impure? (That is, have > >>>>> more than one qualitative or quantitative meaning?) > > Jerry, List, > > There is something that needs to be said about the proper use of categories > and classifications in Peirce's work and what I regard as their mis-use in a > great number of contemporary discussions. > > One of the first issues I can remember pointing out when I joined the Peirce > List was the distinction between "triadicities" and "trichotomies", the first > relating to properties of triadic relations and the second relating to > mutually exclusive and exhaustive partitions of a domain. Although one can > form what is known in mathematics as a "projective" relation between the two > structures, the trichotomies remain pale reflections of the richer > triadicities, distorting and reducing much of their information. Trying to > comprehend triadic relations by means of their projective trichotomies is a > project ultimately doomed to fail. > > To be continued ... > > Jon > > > Jon Awbrey wrote: > >> Jerry, List, >> Re: "CSP's rhetorical stance" >> Somewhere in the classical part of my education I picked up the notion that >> rhetoric is an inquiry into the forms of argument, discussion, and reasoning >> that "consider the audience", in other words, that take the nurture and the >> nature of the interpreter into account. >> But considering the interpreter, putting the interpreter back into the >> process of interpretation, is the very thing that sets Peirce's account of >> information, inquiry, logic, signs, and pragmatic thinking in general apart >> from the run of logical systems that had been developed to any significant >> technical degree up to his time and even long after it. >> The Horror! The Horror! A Spectre Is Haunting Logic — The Spectre Of >> Relativism! >> Well, no, not really, but you'd think it from the ter-roar that >> dyad-in-the-wool flatlanders raise at the very idea of moving logic into the >> 3rd dimension. >> To be continued ... >> Jon >> Jon Awbrey wrote: >>> Jerry, List, >>> >>> If we understand what Peirce is talking about then it's usually fairly >>> easy to understand what he says, but it's almost impossible to >>> understand what he says if we do not understand what he's talking about. >>> >>> That is not a paraphrase of the Meno paradox — >>> it is only a clue to the role of collateral >>> acquaintance in escaping the Meno paradox. >>> >>> I'll try address your questions more directly tomorrow ... >>> >>> Jon >>> >>>> Jerry LR Chandler wrote: >>>>> List, Jon: >>>>> >>>>> These are excellent questions! What do you think about these >>>>> extentions? >>>>> >>>>> These questions penetrate to the heart of CSP's rhetorical stance as >>>>> illustrated by the triadic triad: >>>>> >>>>> qualisign, sinsign, legisign, >>>>> icon, index, symbol, >>>>> rhema, dicisign, argument. >>>>> >>>>> If these terms are to form a coherent pattern of inferences, >>>>> is it necessary that the terms themselves, under different >>>>> situations and constraints, be impure? (That is, have >>>>> more than one qualitative or quantitative meaning?) >>>>> >>>>> Further questions about the purity of thought arise readily... >>>>> >>>>> In particular, does the concept of a decisign emerge because of the >>>>> differences between pure and impure indices, such as the indices between >>>>> chains and branched chains of inferences? >>>>> >>>>> On a technical note, often CSP's chains of inferences appear to start >>>>> with Lavoisier's principle of purity which is necessary for all exact >>>>> (pragmatic) logic of chemistry and molecular biology? >>>>> >>>>> Does Lavoisier's principle of purity have any influence on CSP's use >>>>> of the terms, Pure Icon and Pure Index? >>>>> >>>>> Cheers >>>>> >>>>> Jerry >>>>> > > -- > > 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 . > > > >
----------------------------- 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 .
