Thanks for the context, Jerry. I am not familiar with the passage, but it does seem, by your account, to be peculiar at best. I would agree that the standard representation of NH3 puts all of the nodes (the endpoints, or perhaps the branches, representing hydrogen atoms and the centre the nitrogen atom). This is a structure of relations, and I see no reason why it would need to be interpreted as a third. That is quite unlike the triple relation of the sign, unless we are missing something here, I have no idea what it might be. Your explanation seems plausible to me, given Peirce's (near) obsession with threes, but it is also such an obvious error that I can't help but wonder if we are missing something.
John Collier Professor Emeritus and Senior Research Associate University of KwaZulu-Natal http://web.ncf.ca/collier > -----Original Message----- > From: Jerry LR Chandler [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Tuesday, 05 April 2016 6:24 AM > To: Peirce List > Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Systems Of Interpretation > > 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-%e > >> 2%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 .
