Edwina,
My apology, it is not my wish to be unkind.
I do not know what you mean by a "semiosic triad of relations".
I have been talking about triadic relations as Peirce described them from his
earliest papers and focusing on the subclass of triadic relations that satisfy
his more complete definitions of sign relations, the ones that are definitive
enough to support a consequential and applicable theory of signs.
When you describe a process as a function f : X -> Y then you are describing it
as a particular type of dyadic relation, one that satisfies the definition of a
function, because that is what a function is. There are many processes in the
world that are usefully described as functions. But the sorts of process we
survey in Peircean semiotics force us to consider models of a higher adicity
than dyadic relations and functions -- any adequate models have too high an
order of complexity and dimensionality to fit into that dyadic category.
Jon
Edwina Taborsky wrote:
I guess, Jon, we'll have to 'agree to disagree'. I don't agree with your
outline of the semiosic triad of relations ("A triadic sign relation
determines a number of dyadic relations that can be derived or projected from
it, but the dyadic relations so derived or projected do not determine the
triadic sign relation."] You can state your opinion but it certainly hasn't
convinced me - as my statement of my view hasn't convinced you!
We've been through this debate before on these blogs, where the very mention
of 'relations' was smashed down ... as, for example, when I referred to the
interaction between the Object-Representamen as a 'Relation' - and this
resulted in a flurry of objection that I dared to use the term 'relation' to
describe the interaction. [Same thing, when I used the term 'mediation' to
describe the Representamen and I was attacked for so doing - until I pointed
out that Peirce had used it often]. Then, I've been accused of considering
that such an interaction , eg, Representamen-Object is a 'dyad'...when, as
I've pointed out repeatedly, a dyadic interaction requires that the two
perimeters consist of actual agents - as in Pitcher -to-Batter and this is
not the case in these semiosic interactions.
So, you can stand by your analysis and I'll stand by mine. What I will NOT
do, is deride or mock your analysis - for there is no reason for my doing
that to another scholar.
Edwina
--
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 .
