Hi Helmut, Stephen and list... I like what you say and I think you are looking for a knock-down argument to say which is correct, but I'm not sure there is one. The thing that will give you satisfaction may simply be the experience that it is present in other works, like *Plato's Republic* (very prominent, in fact).
A related question is whether triadicity is necessarily dialogic between an utterer, interpreter and commens, which I think it must be...because representamen for utterer or interpreter?...what does the commens say? For example, I think a good place to start would be to ask how the event is interpreted by a community of inquirers who practice a scientific habit of mind. Once you put out that concept in the form of CP 5.189, the principles of esthetics, ethics and logic will take hold and everyone has a voice. The consensus voice is what we're after. Therefore, the logic will rest on social principles. Another way would be to ask what a stranger/philosopher, with the correct ordering in his soul, who comes into the argument tomorrow, would say about what the correct representation of the event is. Stephen, I think phi spiral abduction is a good place to start, except what I have is only the abduction, an opinion I believe is a true opinion. The truth is in the future, so there is genuine doubt because of the magnitude of my claims. Also, the quality of my abduction can be assessed by asking "if not this, which"? Therefore, it is an argument of subduance because a comparison against alternatives will support which is the best inference. The burden to provide a better explanation is not on me because I put forth a clear statement of C, A, B which I believe to be the best already. There is a problem of knowing enough to make an alternative claim... hth, Jerry Rhee On Fri, Apr 22, 2016 at 2:26 PM, Stephen C. Rose <[email protected]> wrote: > If there is still debate about what is a first and a second, as I must > assume from seeing these posts, are there any examples of actual results > from triadic work that might cast light on the matter? > > It seems to me that one would settle on what they believe and then move to > some demonstrable provable experiment with a real conclusion. > > I am no scientist or mathematician and aspire to no expertise in either > field. I I could see that maybe from one to another person or discipline > various understandings of the triadic progression and related matters would > be relatively useful. > > In my own non-professional realm I am tolerably convinced that three steps > of conscious consideration do work. And that they have some reference to > icon, index and symbol. > > And that Peirce's influence will eventually be to move the wor;ld in the > direction of triadic thinking . Such a conclusion hardly rests on a > comprehension of various ins and outs I have seen. Rather it rests on the > logic of a thought process that has three stages and culminates in a > practical result which is the fruit by which the "philosophy" is known. > > Books http://buff.ly/15GfdqU > > On Fri, Apr 22, 2016 at 2:57 PM, Helmut Raulien <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Jerry, Jeff, List, >> this problem has long been a mystery to me, and I have often changed my >> opinion, whether object or representamen is first or second. At last i had >> made up an interpretation, which I would like you all to ask if it is ok. >> It is like this: Starting from the irreduciblity-claim, neither of the >> three sign parts (representamen, object, interpretant) can be first, >> second, or third in temporal sense, because if the triad made of them is >> irreducible, neither of them can exist alone. Determination and causality >> are both functions of temporality, so there cannot be a first,second, third >> in determination-sense or causality-sense either. Not even the dynamical >> object, although it is located outside of the sign, can be first, because >> it is only then a dynamical object, when the sign is on. But surely there >> are things that are first, second, third. These are the events and entities >> which are about to become a representamen or an object. Eg, there is an >> event, something is happening. There also is a number of entities (things, >> subjects...) within the reach of this event (in its event horizon). One of >> these entities is changed by the event. Now the event is a representamen, >> the affected entity is an object, and the change is an interpretant. Now >> one might say, that the representamen was first, but it is not correct: >> what was first in the sense of causality or determination, was the event, >> which later became a representamen. But on the other hand, one might say, >> that the entity, which later became an object, was first, because it had >> already existed, before the event occured. So, which way of seeing it is >> correct now? Both ways are about temporality. I would say: Regarding the >> act of determination or causality, by looking merely at the temporality >> that is a function of causality/determination, the event (later called >> representamen) is first. But looking just at temporality as such, as a >> scale, and not as a function of causality/determination, then in this >> absolute time scale the entity (later called object) is first. Was this >> confusing or clearing? I guess, you might say, that a representamen is not >> necessarily a former event, it can also be a thing, like a written word. >> But then id say, the event is reading it- so, the word is the sign vehicle >> (representamen-vehicle), but the representamen is the word in its reading >> mode. So in this case, the event in its nonrepresentamen mode is a very >> short one: already read, but not yet perceived. But before I am beginning >> to doubt everything I have just written, and I can feel this doubt arising >> just now, I say, so much fot that, and is there something to it? >> Best, >> Helmut >> >> *Gesendet:* Donnerstag, 21. April 2016 um 01:40 Uhr >> *Von:* "Jerry Rhee" <[email protected]> >> *An:* "Jerry LR Chandler" <[email protected]> >> *Cc:* "Peirce List" <[email protected]>, "Jeffrey Brian Downard" < >> [email protected]> >> *Betreff:* Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Peirce on the Definition of Determination >> >> Jeff, list: >> >> >> >> In various writings by Peirce and by interpreters of Peirce, >> >> it is one, two, three; sign, object, interpretant. (c.f., Brent, >> >> http://www.iupui.edu/~arisbe/menu/library/aboutcsp/brent/PURSUING.HTM >> >> >> >> Yet, your interpretation of determination from the quote above says, >> >> object (one), sign (two), interpretant (three). >> >> >> >> Where’s the proof for which is *correct* or can *both be correct*? >> >> >> >> That is, how should we enter inquiry when we are received the finger (as >> the moon) and not the moon, itself? >> >> >> >> c.f., at 1:15 of >> >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sDW6vkuqGLg >> >> >> >> Best, >> >> Jerry Rhee >> >> On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 1:28 PM, Jerry LR Chandler < >> [email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On Apr 20, 2016, at 12:31 PM, Jeffrey Brian Downard < >>> [email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> First, an analysis of the essence of a sign, (stretching that word to >>> its widest limits, as *anything which, being determined by an object, >>> determines an interpretation to determination, through it, by the same >>> object*), leads to a proof that every sign is determined by its object, >>> either first, by partaking in the characters of the object, when I call the >>> sign an *Icon*; secondly, by being really and in its individual >>> existence connected with the individual object, when I call the sign an >>> *Index*; thirdly, by more or less approximate certainty that it will be >>> interpreted as denoting the object, in consequence of a habit (which term I >>> use as including a natural disposition), when I call the sign a *Symbol* >>> . (CP, 4.531) >>> >>> Peirce makes the following claim: All determination is by negation; we >>> can first recognize any character only by putting an object which possesses >>> it into comparison with an object which possesses it not. (CP 5.294) Having >>> examined a number of places where Peirce describes different sorts of >>> determination, one of the clearest sets of definitions and explanations are >>> found in an unpublished set of manuscript. In particular, MS 612 contains >>> a detailed analysis of the meaning of “determination,” “determined to >>> accord,” and “determined after.” Here are links to the manuscript pages and >>> (as yet unedited) transcriptions of the relevant passages in FromThePage: >>> >>> >>> >>> List, >>> >>> It may be helpful to recognize that these writings are simply >>> re-statements and generalizations of the methods of chemical determination >>> as they stood in the latter part of the 19 th Century. >>> >>> In particular, the sentence: >>> >>> All determination is by negation; we can first recognize any character >>> only by putting an object which possesses it into comparison with an object >>> which possesses it not. >>> >>> is absolutely essential as the first phase of erotetic logic. (What is >>> it?) >>> >>> Logically, many chemical elements are known to exist and are potential >>> precedences for the material at hand. >>> If you want to determine what is in a thing, one must eliminate >>> everything else. >>> The antecedent of the determination must be an object. Otherwise, no >>> sign exists. >>> And, no determination is possible. >>> >>> In the habits of chemists, various methods are given names. These >>> methods were not necessary specific and often inconsistent with one another >>> so that double and triple checking of questionable tests were necessary. >>> >>> The specific goal of determination was to reach a conclusion with regard >>> to the molecular formula (ratios of small whole numbers by weight of each >>> element that appears in the determination. >>> >>> The broad goal of the chemist must be constrained for application of the >>> semantics to non-material phenomena. >>> >>> >>> Hope this is helpful >>> >>> Cheers >>> >>> Jerry >>> >>> >>> >>> ----------------------------- >>> 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 . >> >> >> ----------------------------- >> 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 .
