Jerry,
The analogy between relative terms and chemical molecules is
a very weak analogy. It breaks down almost immediately just
as soon as we subject it to critical examination, namely by
looking at the very real differences between the two realms
rather than their very superficial similarities. There was
once a flurry of literature about this particular dead end,
and I think that Roberts must have mentioned it somewhere
in his monograph, but I know it became a very dead horse
a long time ago. The attempt to force that analogy past
its breaking point can be instructive in a way, in the
way failed experiments teach us what does not work.
Regards,
Jon
On 4/5/2016 12:24 AM, Jerry LR Chandler wrote:
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 .
