Jon, John: Thanks, Jon.
The question I raised was in order to seek alternative interpretations of CSP’s diagram of a chemical structure, ammonia. (NH3) He showed it as a triad. The nitrogen atom was in the middle of the three hydrogens, each at the end of a spoke. NOT a triangle. But, the chemical atoms are all of the nature and co-exist as relatives. So, four atoms but only a triad. Why? My feeling is that CSP wanted a triad so that he made one. This is not a satisfactory inquiry into a diagrammatic assertion. Cheers Jerry > On Apr 3, 2016, at 5:04 PM, Jon Awbrey <[email protected]> wrote: > > Peircers, > > Questions about the meaning of the “central hub” in the > “three-spoked” picture of an elementary sign relation > have often come up, just recently among Jerry Chandler's > questions and a question Mary Libertin asked on my blog. > Maybe the answer I gave there can help to clear that up: > > http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2016/03/31/systems-of-interpretation-%E2%80%A2-5/#comment-32800 > > The central “spot”, as Peirce called it [in his logical graphs], > is located on a different logical plane, since it is really a > place-holder for the whole sign relation or possibly for the > individual triple. Normally I would have labeled it with a > letter to indicate the whole sign relation, say L, or else > the individual triple, say ℓ = (o, s, i). > > Regards, > > Jon > > On 3/31/2016 1:24 PM, Jon Awbrey wrote: >> Post : Systems Of Interpretation • 5 >> http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2016/03/31/systems-of-interpretation-%e2%80%a2-5/ >> Date : March 31, 2016 at 10:24 am >> >> Subthread: >> MB:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/18534 >> EVD:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/18540 >> JLRC:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/18552 >> JA:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/18553 >> JA:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/18554 >> >> Mike, Val, Jerry, List, >> >> Here is the revised edition of my last comment on the order issue. >> (I am hoping I can get to the rest of Jerry's questions eventually.) >> >> Figure 2. An Elementary Sign Relation (and see attached) >> https://inquiryintoinquiry.files.wordpress.com/2016/03/awbrey-awbrey-1999-elementary-sign-relation.gif >> >> An elementary sign relation is an ordered triple (o, s, i). >> It is called ''elementary'' because it is one element of a >> sign relation L ⊆ O × S × I, where O is a set of objects, >> S is a set of signs, and I is a set of interpretant signs >> that are collectively called the ''domains'' of the relation. >> >> But what is the significance of that ordering? >> >> In any presentation of subject matter we have to distinguish >> the natural order of things from the order of consideration or >> presentation in which things are taken up on a given occasion. >> >> The natural order of things comes to light through the discovery >> of invariants over a variety of presentations and representations. >> That type of order tends to take a considerable effort to reveal. >> >> The order of consideration or presentation is often more arbitrary, >> making some aspects of the subject matter more salient than others >> depending on the paradigm or perspective one has chosen. >> >> In the case of sign relations, the order in which we take up >> the domains O, S, I or the components of a triple (o, s, i) >> is wholly arbitrary so long as we maintain the same order >> throughout the course of discussion. >> >> Regards, >> >> Jon >> > > -- > > academia: http://independent.academia.edu/JonAwbrey > my word press blog: http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/ > > > ----------------------------- > 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 .
