Hi Hans-Ferdinand, (1) The concept of the irreducible triad (or what I call the irreducible triadic relation, ITR) comes form the American chemist, logician and philosopher, Charles Sander Peirce (1839-1914). The idea is embodied in his definitions of the sign. For example, he defined a sign as follows:
(http://www.iupui.edu/~arisbe/rsources/76DEFS/76defs.HTM) *9 - v. 1897_- C.P. 2-228 - Division of signs .* A sign, or representamen, is something which stands to somebody for something in some respect or capacity. It addresses somebody, that is, creates in the mind of that person an equivalent sign or perhaps a more developed sign. That sign which it creates I call the interpretant of the first sign. The sign stands for something, its object. It stands for that object, not in all respects, but in reference to a sort of idea, which I have sometimes called the ground of the representamen. [...] I represented the triadic definition of the sign give above diagrammtically as follows: f g Object -------> Representamen -------> Interpretant | ^ | | |___________________________________| h Figure 1. The Peircean sign represnted as a mathematical category, or commutative triangle, where the mappings, f, g and h commute: i.e., f x g = h, meaning f followed by g leads to the same result as h. f = sign production; g = sign interpretation; h = information flow or grounding. (2) According to the Daoist philosophy, One, Two and Three are related thus: *“The Dao *道 * (the “way”) gives birth to one. * *One gives birth to Two, Two gives birth to Three. Three gives birth to thousands of things or all things in the universe."Reproduced from: https://hungkeung.wordpress.com/exhibition/dao-gives-birth-to-one <https://hungkeung.wordpress.com/exhibition/dao-gives-birth-to-one>* If ITR is the universal principle as I suppose, it should be applicable to the Dao as well, which leads me to suggest the following diagram akin to the diagrammatic representation of the Peircean sign given in Figure 1 above: f g One -------> Two -------> Three | ^ | | |______________________| h Figure 2. The Dao represented as a mathematical category, or a 'commutative triangle', where the mappings, f, g, and h are thought to commute: i.e., f x g = h, meaning f followed by g leads to the same result as h. f = the genesis of Yin and Yang (cosmogenesis ?); g = the production of patterns resulting from the interactions between Yin and Yang (semiogenesis ?); h = information flow, i.e., the patterns encode the cosmic information. Based on the similarity evident in Figures 1 and 2, we may be justified to conclude that the Peircean sign theory (and his metaphysics) and the Daoist philosophy belong to the same category of the tridic philosophy. (3) Figure 2 may be read in two ways -- (i) diachronically, i.e., One precedes Two which precedes Three, or (ii) synchronically, i.e., One, Two and Three form inseparably fused entity NOW, supporting actions, functions, and decision-makings. This is reminiscent of linguistics where languages are studied or used in two independent ways -- (i) synchronically (one doe snot have to know how words originated in order to know how to use them), and (ii) diachronically (i.e., all words have their unique etymology which can be studied). I hope that these comments will help answer some of your questions. If not, pleaase let me know. Thanks for the link to your new paper. I look forward to reading it. All the best. Sung On Thu, Jul 9, 2015 at 3:33 AM, Hans-Ferdinand Angel <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Sung > > > > Interesting how you integrate the credition model into your reflection. > > > > Questions: > > > > Who/.../what produces „3“ and triadic concepts/ideas? (The production of) > concepts, ideas, terms, …. follow(s) what? > > > > Is “3” a hierarchically “higher” level than two (triade “higher” than > dichotomy?) > > Is there a relation between “hierarchy” and “looping-*processes*”? > > > > PS: We related the question of credition and valuation to the concept of > “the self” (again triadic as I realize now in a deeper sense): > > Sugiura Motoaki / Rüdiger J. Seitz / Hans-Ferdinand Angel: > > Models and Neural Bases of the Believing Process > <http://www.scirp.org/journal/JBBS/>, in: Journal of Behavioral and Brain > Science 5 (2015), 12-23. > > > > PS: I read all of your mails even if not answering. Find cc: some > interesting fellows. > > > > Best > > Hans-Ferdinand > > > > > > *Von:* [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] *Im > Auftrag von *Sungchul Ji > *Gesendet:* Donnerstag, 09. Juli 2015 01:42 > *An:* biosemiotics; PEIRCE-L > *Betreff:* The Universality of ITR (Irreducible Triadic Relation) -- II > > > > Hi, > > > > In CP 1.1 reproduced as (070514-1) in the biosemiotics post dated 7/5/2014 > (see Attachment below), Peirce predicted the existence of “simple concepts > applicable to every subject”. In the same post, I proposed that one of the > possible “simple concepts applicable to every subject” that Peirce was > referring to may be Peirce’s own concept of “irreducible triadicity” which > I alternatively called the “irreducible triadic relation’ (ITR). To > [biosemiotics:8730] dated 6/30/2015, I attached a table entitled “The > universality of ITR (Irreducible Triadic Relation)” applying ITR to 13 > different subjects, ranging from (i) quantum mechanics to (ii) enzymology, > (iii) gnergetics (study of the information-energy driving all > self-organizations), (iv) semiotics, (v) category theory, (vi) > metaphysics, and to (vii) religions. > > > The purpose of this post is to expand the 6/30/2015 table to include one > more item, i.e., Psychology, in the form of the emotion-cognition-belief > triad (or the emotion-cognition-credition triad as referred to by H.-F. > Angel and his coworkers; see References [10, 11, 12]). This new triad is > shown in Row 9 in the table attached to this post entitled “The university > of ITR”, and this new entry is similar to the rest of the triads in the > table in the sense that it is a member of the ur-category, the category to > which all categories belong. In addition, the ECC > (emotion-cognition-credition) triad may share special similarities with the > triads in Rows 2, 3, and 5. > > > The idea to apply the ITR concept to the emotion-cogntion-belief triad was > stimulated by the following quotations (with the key words highlighted by > me) from M. Shermers’s book, “The Believing Brain” (see Reference [13] > given below the table): > > > > > > “. . . What I *want to* *believe* based on *emotions *and what I > *should (070815-1)believe *based on *evidence* do not > always coincide. I’m a skeptic not > because I do not want to *believe*, but because I want to *know*. How > can we tell the difference between what we *would like* to be true and > what *is* actually true ? . . . The answer is *science*. We live in the > Age > of Science, in which *beliefs* are supposed to be *grounded* in > rock-solid > evidence and *empirical data*. . . . .” [13, p. 2] > > > > “. . . scientists are people too, no less subject to the whims of *emotion > * (070815-2) > > and the pull of *cognitive *biases to shape and reinforce *beliefs*.” > [13, P. 6]. > > > > > I am assuming that a significant part of the meanings of these two quotes > can be captured with what I came to refer to as the > “emotion-cognition-credition” (ECC) triad that I first learned about in the > 2014 Credition Conference held in Graz, Austria. One significance of the > ECC triad may be that it underlies all human actions and decision makings, > including all common human behaviors as well as uncommon behaviors such as > self-immolations and suicide bombings. > > > > If you have any questions or comments, let me know. > > > > All the best. > > > > > > Sung > > > > ______________________Attachement____________________ > > > > > > --------------------------- Original Message ---------------------------- > > *> Subject: Burgin’s Fundamental Triads as Peirceasn Signs.* > > *> From: "Sungchul Ji" <[email protected] <[email protected]>>* > > *> Date: Sat, July 5, 2014 5:33 pm* > > *> To: [email protected] <[email protected]>* > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > Stephen R on the Peirce list cited Peirce as saying: > > > > > > "The undertaking which this volume inaugurates is to (070514-1) > > > make a philosophy like that of Aristotle, that is to say, to > > > outline a theory so comprehensive that, for a long time to > > > come, the entire work of human reason, in philosophy of > > > every school and kind, in mathematics, in psychology, > > > in physical science, in history, in sociology, and in > > > whatever other department there may be, shall appear > > > as the filling up of its details. The first step toward > > > this is to find simple concepts applicable to every > > > subject." CP 1.1 > > > > > > At least one of the potential "simple concepts" that Peirce is referring > > > to above may turn out to be his concept of "irreducible triadicity" > > > embedded in the following quote that Jon recently posted and further > > > explained in Figure 1 and (070514-4): > > > > > > “Logic will here be defined as formal semiotic. (070514-2) > > > A definition of a sign will be given which no more > > > refers to human thought than does the definition of > > > a line as the place which a particle occupies, part > > > by part, during a lapse of time. Namely, a sign is > > > something, A, which brings something, B, its interpretant > > > sign determined or created by it, into the same sort > > > of correspondence with something, C, its object, as > > > that in which itself stands to C. It is from this > > > definition, together with a definition of “formal”, > > > that I deduce mathematically the principles of logic. > > > I also make a historical review of all the definitions > > > and conceptions of logic, and show, not merely that my > > > definition is no novelty, but that my non-psychological > > > conception of logic has virtually been quite generally > > > held, though not generally recognized.” (NEM 4, 20–21). > > > > > > a b > > > C --------> A --------> B > > > | ^ > > > | | > > > |______________________| > > > c > > > > > > Figure 1. A diagrammatic representation of the principle of irreducible > > > triadicity as applied to the definition of a sign. A = sign; B = > > > interpretant; and C = object. a = the sign-object relation (which can > be > > > iconic, indexical or symbolic); b = the sign-interpretant relation (which > > > can be rheme, dicisign or argument); c = the object-interpretant relation > > > (which is lacking in Peircean semiotics but may be provided by > > > microsemiotics [1] or biosemiotics (e.g., [2, 3, 4]). > > > > > > “A is determined by C and determines B in such away (070514-3) > > > that C is indirectly determined by B.” > > > > > -- > > 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 .
