Gary F, you wrote:
The reason that "people keep saying you support dyads" is that your three "relations" have only two "members" each, to use Peirce's term. A triadic relation has three members, not two; and a complexus of three dyadic (two-member) relations is not, according to Peirce, "a triadic relation." That's a completely different analytic frame from Peirce's The triadic relation is genuine, that is its three members are bound together by it in a way that does not consist in any complexus of dyadic relations." Peirce is referring, in his use of the term 'member' to the Relations (see his outline in 8.335) and was declaring that the Sign, as a triad, has three bound parts, the Relations. YOU weren't; you were talking about what YOU see, incorrectly, in my definition of each single Relation as an interaction between, eg, the Representamen and the Object; those two perimeters are what you define as two members. That's not how Peirce used the term - and so, I ask you again, where do you get the sense that the perimeters are 'members'? My response was to point out that the perimeters of the Relation between the, eg, Representamen and the Object are NOT 'members'. So, when I refer to three Relations; that between the Representamen-Object; the Representamen in itself; the Representamen-Object....YOU define these as DYADS, with each perimeter node a 'member'. That, as I have constantly pointed out, is absolutely incorrect. I could say the same about you - 'if you think your version of semiotics...and..even..if you think you are correct in your interpretation of Peirce'...for I don't agree that your interpretation is correct. And that's as far as it should go. You reject debate and discussion and accept only consensus. Otherwise, you get 'testy'. Again, kindly speak only for yourself; there is no need to 'appeal to others' to stand up and cheer for you. Your arguments should stand or fall, totally on their own merit. I admit, I can never understand why some people feel the need for a crowd around them to cheer on their arguments. You don't agree with me. That's fine - you haven't convinced me that my analytic frame is incorrect, and name-calling or putting me down is not a successful method. You don't agree with me -; I haven't convinced you of the validity of my analysis. and that's as far as it should go. There is no need for insults. Edwina ----- Original Message ----- From: Gary Fuhrman To: [email protected] ; 'Peirce-L' Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2014 4:32 PM Subject: RE: [PEIRCE-L] Re: [biosemiotics:7750] Re: Peirce categories Edwina, speaking of the three "members" of a triadic relation, you say that relations "are NOT composed of 'members' (where do you get that from?)" I get it from CP 2.274, the very passage (quoted by Gary R.) that you claimed to be in agreement with: "The triadic relation is genuine, that is its three members are bound together by it in a way that does not consist in any complexus of dyadic relations." Did you even look at that passage before you posted your "interpretation" of it? or afterwards? If you think your version of semiotics is better than Peirce's, fine, just say so. But you can't expect anyone to believe that it's the same as Peirce's when you directly contradict Peirce on such a basic matter. The rest of your message requires no comment, but I include it so that others can see for themselves (if they haven't already). gary f. From: Edwina Taborsky [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 16-Dec-14 3:41 PM To: Gary Fuhrman; [email protected]; 'Peirce-L' Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: [biosemiotics:7750] Re: Peirce categories Ah well, Gary F, I could say that I'm baffled by your inability to understand my analysis but I don't have that nasty streak in me to say that to someone else- and imply that they are intellectually or even psychologically incompetent and as such have an 'inability to see or admit'...etc.. And of course, I disagree that my interpretation is in 'direct contradiction to the statements themselves'. I consider that you don't understand the Relation - and Peirce has written extensively of them. They are NOT composed of 'members' (where do you get that from?). A relation is an interaction between nodal sites (the Dynamic Object is one such site; the Immediate Object is another; the Representament, the three Interpretants...) but they do not exist, per se, in themselves. They are part, the perimeters, of an informational interaction; that interaction is a Relation. ...Peirce deals with these interactions/Relations in, eg, 8.335 where he writes "in respect to their relations to their dynamic objects, I divide signs into Iconcs, Indices and Symbols...and in "in regard to its relation to its signified interpretant, a sign is either a Rheme, a Dicent, or an Argument". (8.337). I always refer to the Sign (capital S) as an irreducible triad. I agree with Peirce's statement that "a sign therefore has a triadic relation to its Object and to its Interpretant" (8.343)....BUT, as he does, if you take that triad apart, you can see that the Sign is complex and made up of a dynamic information process of THREE Relations....And the Sign (capital S) does NOT have 'three members', for none of the three parts of the semiosic sign can exist, per se, on its own...while a 'member' certainly implies that it can. As Peirce says, these parts of the Sign '"neither of which is an individual thing" (8.334) I think it best, in the interests of integrity, that you write only for yourself, and not move into argumentum ad populum and speak for 'everybody', as you do in your last sentence. You are free, of course, to think that I am someone unable or unwilling to agree with you - but, that should hardly bother either of us. Edwina ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ----------------------------- 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 .
