Ben, lists, Ben wrote:
In the case of object, sign, interpretant, insofar as the object determines the sign to determine the interpretant to be determined by the object as the sign is determined by the object, the order of semiotic determination is 'object, sign, interpretant', although object, sign, interpretant are not to be understood as acting like successive falling dominoes. Well, and succinctly stated. One also, I suppose, ought in this connection rehearse Peirce's use of the concept of determination, which is, of course, not physical determination. It's a topic which has been discussed on peirce-l on a number of occasions, but I don't recall if you've written about semiotic determination in any of your Wikipedia articles, Ben. If so, would you direct me to that article? Best, Gary [image: Gary Richmond] *Gary Richmond* *Philosophy and Critical Thinking* *Communication Studies* *LaGuardia College of the City University of New York* *C 745* *718 482-5690* On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 12:07 PM, Benjamin Udell <[email protected]> wrote: > Jeff, Jon, lists, > > I think that all that is required for an ordered triple, or an ordering of > any length, is a rough notion of 'more' or 'less', for example an ordering > of personal preferences, and this is enough for theorems, for example > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow%27s_impossibility_theorem. Exact > quantities are not required. In the case of object, sign, interpretant, > insofar as the object determines the sign to determine the interpretant to > be determined by the object as the sign is determined by the object, the > order of semiotic determination is 'object, sign, interpretant', although > object, sign, interpretant are not to be understood as acting like > successive falling dominoes. > > Best, Ben > > On 1/27/2015 2:08 PM, Jeffrey Brian Downard wrote: > > [....] > Here is the starting question: Doesn't the notion of an ordered triple > require that we already have things sorted out in such a way that we are > able to ascribe quantitative values to each subject that is a correlate of > the triadic relation? > [....] > > > > ----------------------------- > 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 .
