Thanks, Jon, this explains your lack of interest in semiosis, and in Peirce's later work generally. If I thought that "reasoning about a broad class of relations" was the main thrust of Peirce's work, I probably wouldn't be much interested in it either. But I think he went much further down the road of inquiry than that, so my reading of Peirce is still far from finished.
Gary f. -----Original Message----- From: Jon Awbrey [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 6-Apr-16 11:45 To: [email protected]; 'Peirce List' <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] RE: Systems Of Interpretation Gary, List, Surely you must understand that sign relations are special cases of triadic relations, namely those that satisfy a certain definition, and that triadic relations are special cases of relations in general. If Peirce's various logical algebras, calculi, formal systems, graphical syntaxes, whatever you want to call them, were not adequate for representing and (by that most folks would say it goes without saying) reasoning about a reasonably broad class of relations in general, then none of those systems would have attracted much attention or found much use. Indeed, my reading of Peirce from his early incubations to his late outcroppings convinces me that being able to reason about sign relations is one of the main motivations driving all of his logical systems, since the understanding of how inquiry works demands it. Regards, Jon On 4/6/2016 9:52 AM, [email protected] wrote: > Jon, rather than repeat what you've said umpteen times before in this > "very old" discussion, I'd suggest that you read BOTH passages that I > quoted (you ignored the second one) in their original context. It > might call into question your assertion about what Peirce's > existential graphs "serve to represent." You might even see that they do NOT > represent the triadic relation of sign-object-interpretant, which is NOT > analogous to a predicate with three subjects; rather the transformations of > the graphs represent the triadic action of an argument, i.e. of inference. > They are “moving pictures of thought,” not static diagrams of > relations. You might also take a fresh look at the “Prolegomena to an > Apology for Pragmaticism” as an explanation of what these graphs actually > represent, and why Peirce considered them much superior to his logical > algebras for that purpose. > > Gary f.
----------------------------- 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 .
