1) But that's not how the Peircean Sign (the triad) operates - in a reverse
cycle. The Interpretant informs not only the existential reality of the Object
but also, vitally, the reality of the Representamen.
2) Your refusal to read Peirce, and your reliance on singular decontextualized
quotes found in a collection of quotes means that you don't understand the
infrastructure of the Sign. Why predict? Why not simply read Peirce.
3) Again, the exact reference ought to have been provided.
4) You state that the 'g' or the Relation between the Representamen and the
Interpretant, is missing in Peirce - and you don't say 'missing in the quoted
definition' but instead clearly say 'missing in Peirce's definition of the
irreducible triad" - a totally different statement. (And I don't know how you
can claim this). Therefore, Peirce's definition of the irreducible triad and
your diagram have no analogy.
5) And, of course, your misuse of the categories is another problem.
Edwina
----- Original Message -----
From: Sungchul Ji
To: Edwina Taborsky
Sent: Monday, June 22, 2015 9:19 PM
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Survey of Relation Theory • 1
Edwina,
(1) First, Sung, I do indeed find a deficiency in your Firgure 1. Thus, if
your arrows are deterministic, then, the whole set is linear.
It depends on how the deterministic arrows are connected:
linearly thus A -----> B ------> C
or cyclically thus A -----> B -----> C
| ^
| |
|____________|
(2) Second, if you state that 'g' is missing in Peirce's definition, then you
cannot include it in your diagram and tell us that this diagram is of a
'Peircean sign'.
If the Pericean sign is irreducibly triadic (as Peirce clearly pointed), then
there has to be the structure-preserving mapping "g" from representamen to
"intepretant", although he may not have mentioned it explicitly in the quoted
definition. If Peirce's definition of the sign lacks an equivalent of "g", I
would have to conclude that \ Peirce's sign is not a member of the ur-category
and hence is not irreducibly triadic. On the other hand, if the Peircean sign
is irreducibly triadic, there has to be an equivalent of "g" in one of his many
definitions of signs (this would be my prediction).
(3) Third, your quotation (and a scholar ought to provide the exact
reference) doesn't have a thing to do with your diagram.
The reference is given as given
http://www.iupui.edu/~arisbe/rsources/76DEFS/76defs.HTM: from which any one
can find the more exact reference if needed.
You say my quotation "doesn't have a thing to do with your diagram." You
must have some good reasons to come to such a definite conclusion. Can you
explain what they are ?
All the best.
Sung
On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 7:53 PM, Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> wrote:
First, Sung, I do indeed find a deficiency in your Firgure 1. Thus, if your
arrows are deterministic, then, the whole set is linear. Second, if you state
that 'g' is missing in Peirce's definition, then you cannot include it in your
diagram and tell us that this diagram is of a 'Peircean sign'. Third, your
quotation (and a scholar ought to provide the exact reference) doesn't have a
thing to do with your diagram.
Edwina
----- Original Message -----
From: Sungchul Ji
To: Edwina Taborsky
Sent: Monday, June 22, 2015 6:09 PM
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Survey of Relation Theory • 1
Edwina wrote:
"Sung's diagram doesn't represent the Peircean triad (which, if one wants
(062215-1)
to diagram it, is better done as a 'spoked umbrella') because Sung's
diagram
is simply a linear cumulation, and the Peircean sign is definitely not
that."
My diagram (reproduced below) is not "simply a linear cumulation" as the
evidence will show.
f g
Object ------> Representamen ------> Interpretant
| ^
| |
|_____________________________ __|
h
Figure 1. The Peircean sign viewed as a mathematical category (i.e., as
members of the ur-category).
f = sign production; g = sign intepretation; f = grounding (or
information flow).
the commutative condition is satisfied in that f x g = h. The arrows can
be read as "determines".
This diagram is almost identical to Peircean definition of signs (given
below), if you accept the following identities:
f = Þ
h = µ
g = missing in Peirce's definition of the irreducible triad.
A = Representamen
B = Object
C = Interpretant
Peirecan defintion of signs, reproduced from
http://www.iupui.edu/~arisbe/rsources/76DEFS/76defs.HTM:
A "sign" is anything, A, which,
(1) in addition to other characters of its own,
(2) stands in a dyadic relation Þ, to a purely active correlate, B,
(3) and is also in a triadic relation to B for a purely passive
correlate, C, this triadic relation being such as to determine C to be in a
dyadic relation, µ, to B, the relation µ corresponding in a recognized way to
the relation Þ.
The concept of the ur-category introduced in my post dated 7/23/14 (to be
forwarded separately for your reference) has been proven useful (at least for
me) and seems to apply to defining Peircean signs as indicated in Figure 1.
Obviously Figure 1 cannot capture all the rich details of the Peircean sign but
only some of its key features.
If you see any deficiency in Figure 1, let me know.
All the best.
Sung
On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 3:55 PM, Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]>
wrote:
I agree with Jon here. Sung's diagram doesn't represent the Peircean
triad (which, if one wants to diagram it, is better done as a 'spoked
umbrella') because Sung's diagram is simply a linear cumulation, and the
Peircean sign is definitely not that.
In addition, Thirdness is a categorical mode of organization, and
no-one considers that it operates only in the Interpretant. If you check the
ten Peircean classes of signs (2.256), you'll see that the Interpretant is in a
mode of Thirdness in only ONE Sign - the Argument. In the other 9 classes, it
is never in a mode of Thirdness but is either in a mode of Firstness or
Secondness. In addition, the term 'Thirdness' also doesn't apply to 'the whole
3-node network'; the triad's three Relations are only ALL in a mode of
Thirdness in that one Sign: the Argument.
Edwina
----- Original Message ----- From: "Jon Awbrey" <[email protected]>
To: "Sungchul Ji" <[email protected]>
Cc: "Helmut Raulien" <[email protected]>; "Peirce List"
<[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 22, 2015 3:32 PM
Subject: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Survey of Relation Theory • 1
Sung, List,
Like I keep saying, but maybe some folks haven't heard it yet,
the main problem with the diagram you keep drawing is that it
does not represent an irreducibly triadic sign relation at all.
What it does represent is the decomposition of the function or
dyadic relation h as a composition f o g of two other functions
or dyadic relations f and g. But decomposability is just another
word for reducibility and so your diagram depicts the very opposite
of the property you keep saying it depicts.
Regards,
Jon
On 6/22/2015 2:57 PM, Sungchul Ji wrote:
Jon wrote:
"So it's perfectly okay to say that relations exist in the world and
you can even say that thirdness is the essence of triadic relations,
meaning that all triadic relations have a property in common that
you might as well call “thirdness” as anything else, but when you
turn to saying that thirdness inheres in one of the places of the
relation and not the others then that is a matter of another sort
and it does not automatically follow. Here we risk what I have
called the “Fallacy Of Misplaced Essence” (FOME) and avoiding
that takes quite a bit more care."
I agree.
The following diagram may help us avoid FOME. That is, the term
"thirdness" applies to the whole 3-node network, not to
Interpretant alone,
as some may be tempted to assume.
f g
Object ------> Representamen ------> Interpretant
| ^
| |
|_______________________________________|
h
In other words, "thirdness" to me is the name given to the
irreducible
triadicity depicted in this figure consisting of 3 nodes and 3
edges that
satisfy the commutative condition, which I conveniently represent
as f x g
= h, where f = sign production, g = sign interpretation, h =
validation,
grounding, proof, information flow, etc.
All the best.
Sung
On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 9:50 AM, Jon Awbrey <[email protected]> wrote:
Helmut, List,
A day in the yard meditatively pulling weeds helped me to clear
my head and
I think I can see where this all went agley. I still think that
what Harry
wrote is an apt statement of a critical point in Peirce's theory
of signs
and I'm sorry if I stepped on it with my nonce-ens words about
“ontologism”
so I'll put off the long version explanation of that to another
time.
On Edwina's prompting I did take the trouble to look the word up
and I see that it really was already in use, however obscurely,
at least to a non-mediæval scholar like me:
☞ http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11257a.htm
“Ontologism is an ideological system which maintains that God and
Divine ideas> are the first object of our intelligence and the
intuition of God the first act of our intellectual knowledge.”
Although I can dimly see, or imagine a link between that ideology
and the ideology I was trying to criticize I think it's probably
best to avoid conflating the two ideas and so I'll go back to
using words like “essentialism” that I've used before, as in
this record of an earlier discussion:
☞ Nominalism and Essentialism are the Scylla and Charybdis
that Pragmatism Must Navigate Its Middle Way Between
http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2012/09/21/nominalism-and-essentialism-are-the-scylla-and-charybdis-that-pragmatism-must-navigate-its-middle-way-between/
A famous physicist whose name I've forgotten
once said something to the following effect:
“An -ism never did much for science, except for prism.”
To prism I'd add pragmatism and maybe schism but the point is that
I almost always speak of isms in a critical vein, as emphases that
have closed out their complementary emphases or as ideologies that
have taken their initial idea a bridge too far. So I was thinking
of the series ontology, ontologist, ontologism on analogy with the
series science, scientist, scientism.
So it's perfectly okay to say that relations exist in the world
and
you can even say that thirdness is the essence of triadic
relations,
meaning that all triadic relations have a property in common that
you might as well call “thirdness” as anything else, but when you
turn to saying that thirdness inheres in one of the places of the
relation and not the others then that is a matter of another sort
and it does not automatically follow. Here we risk what I have
called the “Fallacy Of Misplaced Essence” (FOME) and avoiding
that takes quite a bit more care.
Regards,
Jon
--
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 .
--
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
--
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
-----------------------------
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 .
