Seems to me that in a triad you are acknowledging that it is a unity and that everything in it is subsumed to the point that such things as subject and object are if there at all blurred. The object of a triad might be seen as an expression, an action or both, following the Pragmatic Maxim -- the entire consideration. So you might have a sign which is sort of a subject and an index which is sort of a colander through which to strain your thoughts and when they reach the symbol stage they have morphed into the object which was not there until now as it were. I am not sure grammatical acuity is possible in this context. But then again what do I know.
Books http://buff.ly/15GfdqU Art: http://buff.ly/1wXAxbl Gifts: http://buff.ly/1wXADj3 On Mon, May 4, 2015 at 12:45 PM, Jerry LR Chandler <jerry_lr_chand...@me.com > wrote: > List, Frederik: > > On May 4, 2015, at 8:46 AM, Howard Pattee wrote: > > How do the Peircean signs and triads avoid facing the subject-object > relation (which Peirce himself called "obscure and mysterious")? > > > Howard has posed an excellent and incisive question with far-ranging > implications! Thanks. > > It seems to me that CSP uses several strategies to avoid the grammatical > "conundrum" that is counter intuitive to his world view. The > "subject-object" argument is hardly more than a grammatical "red herring" > anyway. The semantics of "subject-objects" reduces the verb to a secondary > role in logic. CSP's logic focuses primarily on the meaning of verbs in > associating logical terms, such as his diagram of "lover-benefactor" > relations where both terms are derived from verbs. > > CSP logical tactics appear to include: > > 1. presume that all logical terms are copula (in the sense of his "medads" > role in sentences). This grammatical construct of logical relations is > intrinsic to the grammatical form of antecedent-consequent propositions of > the Stoics. > > 2. presume that an "icon" represents the relations within a discourse. > > 3. uses the term "index" in a vague manner, extremely vaguely, but > consistent with its semantic roots. > > 4. creating the term "rhema" to construct relations among parts of the > whole sentence, medads, complete terms in an argument or subsets of the > argument. > > 5. creating the term "dicisign" to construct indexical relations among > icons represented in the rhema. > > Tactics one and two are *entailed* by his existential interpretation of > matter as relatives. > > Tactic three allows logical terms to be players *in the theatre of the > mind*, they set the stage for the genesis of relations, more > specifically, *electrical* relations in the sense of Porphyry's per > accidens. > > Tactics four and five are modal terms essential to entailments of symbols > and legisigns to generate a sinsign. > (See my earlier posts for an interpretation of the trichotomy as an > associative graph.) > > If one constrains one's concept of logic to grammatical "subject-object" > terminology, one excludes many (if not most) of the constructive arguments > used in CSP writings. > > CSP's innovative tactics "Led the charge" in the decimation of this > traditional grammatical terminology as a critical component of his logic of > relatives. > > This interpretation is a further example of the chemo-centric basis of > CSP's existential logic which persists in his existential graphs and other > assertions defining his concept of relatives. > > Had I had had these five tactics as actors on stage in the theatre of my > mind when I wrote the ratiocinations for the perplex number system, the > play would have unfolded differently. > > BTW, I am fully aware that this synthesis of CSP's tactics is very remote > from Frederik's views in "Natural Propositions". > Yet it coheres with many of Frederik's precepts in his analysis of meaning > of Diagrams. > > Cheers > > Jerry > > > > > > ----------------------------- > PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON > PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to > peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L > but to l...@list.iupui.edu 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 peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
