Jon, list
I do remember your three-dimensional visualization of sign relations,
Jon. I had no intention of excluding you three-dimensional
presentations. I appreciate your work, it just is not my cup of tea.
My note to the list was NOT about sign relations, it was about
understanding the meaning CSP's various diagrammatic presentations,
using triadicity as a key.
Perhaps I should start any note of mine to the list by stating that my
main interest lies in MEANING & understanding, not signs per se.
My work is about EXPERIENTIAL MEANINGS & EXPERIENTIAL TIME, signs are
involved, but play a minor role. In it I aim to solve various
phenomenological problems, inherent in the Husserlian tradition, as well
as in the hermeneutical approach.
Math I need in the eandeavor as a pre-logical science, in the sense CSP
takes up, e.g. in his architecture of sciences
Perhaps this helps to diminish misunderstandings.
Cheers,
Kirsti
Jon Awbrey kirjoitti 7.4.2016 00:56:
{ reposting without as many links }
{ as the last posting got blocked }
Kirsti, List,
As far as visualizations of sign relations go,
without worrying about their use as a calculus,
I've already submitted on several occasions the
following 3-dimensional example from a paper that
Susan Awbrey and I presented at conference in 1999
and revised for publication in 2001.
Figure 3. Aspects of a Sign Relation
http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/work/work-6/awbrey-awbrey-1999-aspects-of-a-sign-relation/
https://inquiryintoinquiry.files.wordpress.com/2016/03/awbrey-awbrey-1999-aspects-of-a-sign-relation.gif
The conference version is available at Arisbe:
http://www.iupui.edu/~arisbe/menu/library/aboutcsp/awbrey/integrat.htm
The published version is available at Sage:
http://org.sagepub.com/content/8/2/269.abstract
I never imagined that the discussion would get so badly snagged
on that simplest bit of chicken-scratching, but I suppose it is
somewhat instructive, however painful (cf. Herodotus) to examine
the host of reasons why.
Regards,
Jon
On 4/5/2016 4:50 AM, kirst...@saunalahti.fi wrote:
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
-----------------------------
PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L
to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To
UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the
line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
