Re: Edwina Taborsky
At: http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/15166
Edwina,
Here I was following the convention of using upper case letters to denote sets
of objects and lower case letters to denote objects regarded as individuals.
In particular, I was using "R" to denote a triadic relation, that is, a set of
ordered triples. Incidentally, I don't use the term "representamen" if I can
help it as it rarely serves any useful purpose as far as communication goes.
I'm afraid I have no way of understanding the rest of what you say below so I'll
have to leave it at that.
Regards,
Jon
Edwina Taborsky wrote:
I think that bringing in other words in place of other words...doesn't
change the analysis.
Jon wrote, of his diagramme, which is quite clear,
The "R" brings to mind a triadic relation R, which collateral knowledge
tells me is a set of 3-tuples.
BUT - calling the triad Sign (capital S) as an 'R' (Representamen)
doesn't change the format. And calling the three Relations within that
triad as '3-tuples' doesn't change the format.
We agree (I think) that the semiosic sign is irreducibly triadic. The
quibble seems to be, in my view, trivial, over whether to consider this
irreducible triad as A Relation or, as I do, as an irreducible set of 3
Relations. And I consider that my conclusion is readily supported within
the Peircean analysis - as I've provided quotations from his own
analysis of each one of these 3 Relations, (and he uses the term
'relation' in his discussion, not 'interaction' as does John D) and his
pointing out how they function differently. It is the FACT of their
different function that leads me to use the plural of the noun
'Relations'. Yet again, no-one is arguing that any one of these 3 can
function alone; they exist only within that 'irreducible triad'. But, so
far, no-one seems to be focusing on the differences within these three -
and why one must acknowledge their differences; the focus seems only to
be one whether to call them: a Relation or an irreducible set of 3
Relations.
And moving into the fallacies of ad hominem (you are unable or unwilling
to..) or ad populum (everyone else thinks like me...) doesn't deal with
this issue.
The question, I think, isn't so much on Relation vs Relations, but on
the nature of the Relation. And I'll continue to use this term as used
by Peirce, rather than 'tuple'. Is it a dyad? I'm saying' no', first,
because the perimeters of the interaction are not between existential
individual entities and second, because the semiosic process is triadic
and the single Relations do not exist on their own. Is a single Relation
a dyad? No, again, because the perimeters of each Relation are part of
the whole triadic interaction.
Certainly, semiosis takes place, as a triadic whole, between two
existential units - whether it be one cell and another cell. What makes
this interaction between, eg, an external Dynamic Object or even an
Internal Object ..and the habits of the Representamen...a Relation? The
fact that it can be in any of the three categorical modes; that moves it
from a mere mechanical interaction to a Relation. Same with the other
two processes of the semiosic triad. 'Something' is going on - and that
something is the transformative action of the categories.
Now, of course, some of you may disagree. But that's how I 'imagize' the
semiosic process and I don't see how my use of the plural of Relations
or my focus on the individual nature of each ofo the three Relations
(and I recall Peirce's focus on their individual nature) is 'offensive'
to some.
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 .
