Jon, Edwina, list,
Jon wrote:
"Here I was following the convention of using upper (122014-1)
case letters to denote sets of objects and lower case
letters to denote objects regarded as individuals."
I did not know that such a convention existed in set theory. This seems a
useful convention for semioticians to adopt, regardless of whether or not
Peirce used such a method:
"It is logical and convenient to denote the triadic sign (122014-2)
sign as the upper case S and representamen as the lower
case s."
Adopting this convention, following Edwina's use in her recent posts,
would generate the following equalities:
Triadic sign = S (122014-3)
Representamen = s
R = s
Compound sign = c-sign = S (122014-4)
Elementary sign = e-sign = s
Equalities (122014-3) and (-4) in effect reduce the 5 different
expressions used in denoting the Peircean sign into just two, i.e., S and
s.
With all the best.
Sung
___________________________________________________
Sungchul Ji, Ph.D.
Associate Professor of Pharmacology and Toxicology
Department of Pharmacology and Toxicology
Ernest Mario School of Pharmacy
Rutgers University
Piscataway, N.J. 08855
732-445-4701
www.conformon.net
> 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 .
