Gary, Edwina, List: Since the subject came up ...
Last week, while wrestling with the three interpretants and their proper order of determination, I was playing around with some speculative diagrams--not of the Peircean triad, but of the ten trichotomies. I ended up with this as a rough first pass. [image: Inline image 1] The correlates are points, the dyadic relations are lines, and the triadic relations are planes; except that the bottom of the tetrahedron consists entirely of signs, all of which are in the same causal relation to the dynamic object as described by Hulswit--formal (necessary condition) for icons, efficient for indexes, or final for symbols. The immediate object and interpretant are closely bound to the sign itself. The dynamic interpretant tends toward the final interpretant. Thoughts? Please be gentle ... Jon On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 4:09 PM, Gary Richmond <[email protected]> wrote: > ET: Just a brief comment - Nadin uses the triangle as an image for the > Peircean triad - and I consider this a problem. The image of the triangle > is closed and linear; the best image for the Peircean triad is the one > Peirce himself used: (1.347), the three-spoked umbrella. It's not linear; > it's interactive; it enables, importantly, networking...for no Peircean > sign exists on its own; it's always networked. > > > I myself don't have that much of a problem with this use of the triangle. > For one thing, Peirce *does* use the triangle, notably in the famous > Welby diagram, to show triadic relations in semiotics. Granted, these are > analytically 'frozen' relations, so speak, but they are quite convenient in > certain cases. Indeed they can, as in the Welby diagram, reveal information > wjocj other diagrammatic techniques wouldn't show as well (for example, the > central trikon which you have occasionally referred to in the Welby > diagram; and there are other relations the Welby triangle reveals). But I > agree with you that for many purposes the three-pronged figure is "more > iconic" than the triangle. > > But, just to argue this a bit further, draw three lines from the vertices > of an equilateral triangle to its center and you have the three-spoked > figure. This is to say that the triangle implies the three-spokes, while a > particular abstracted diagram may not require it. So, again, and in a word, > I don't think one need insist on the three-spoked figure in all instances. > But I would tend to agree with you that for many purposes (beyond certain > analytical ones such as the classification of sign types) that the > three-spoked figure is preferable for the reasons you gave. >
----------------------------- 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 .
