RE: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Systems Of Interpretation

Tue, 05 Apr 2016 01:50:42 -0700 

John & al
I have a suggestion for what is missing. By mistake, I sent my suggestion only to Jerry. But perhaps you and Jon are interested in it, as well. - So I'll copy my note below: 

Jerry,


I have not studied this particular triad CSP has presented. - BUT 
two-dimensional diagrams never present triadicity to completion. Tree 
dimensions are needed.  And even then TIME is needed as the fourth 
dimension, IF any reaction is to be grasped as a process.



Try imagining the diagram in a three-dimensional space. - Triadicity is 
not about triangles (as defined in plane geometry) ). - Then you will 
end up with a tetraed.



Any tetraed has FOUR turning points, four edges, as well as four 
triangular planes. Projective geometry is thus needed in order to 
present a diagram showing the hidden one, too.



And then the dimension of TIME. -  Phillip J. Davis & Reuben Hersh 
(1980) in 'Mathematical Experience' deal with some of the mathematical 
problems involved. (They do not understand triadicity, unfortunately).


Best wishes,

Kirsti




John Collier kirjoitti 5.4.2016 07:41:

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 .


























					Reply via email to