Edwina, List:

ET:  I find the use of the term 'determines' problematic. That's because it
suggests, strongly, causality, even an efficient causality.


The term is not Jeff's, it is Peirce's; it even appears in the title of the
specific work that he referenced.  It does not entail *causality*,
efficient or otherwise; it has more to do with *constraint*.  As Peirce
stated a few years later, in a letter to Lady Welby ...

CSP:  It is evident that a Possible can determine nothing but a Possible;
it is equally so that a Necessitant can be determined by nothing but a
Necessitant. (EP 2.481; 1906)


As Peirce went on to explain, this is the reason why three trichotomies
produce only ten classes, rather than 27.  A qualisign can only determine
an icon, which can only determine a rheme; an argument can only be
determined by a symbol, which can only be determined by a legisign.
Likewise for 28 classes from six trichotomies, rather than 729; and 66
classes from ten trichotomies, rather than 59,049.

ET:  I'm wondering about the diagram of the 'triad of dyadic relations'.
???? Since the semiosic triad can't be broken down into dyads..then...??


Not dyads, but *dyadic relations*; i.e., relations between two
correlates--specifically, S-O and S-I.  Again, I-O is not treated as a
separate dyadic relation, because the sign determines the intepretant to
have the same relation to the object that the sign itself does; or at
least, that is my understanding of Peirce.

Regards,

Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman
www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt

On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 6:19 PM, Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca> wrote:

> Jeffrey- thanks for the diagrams - very interesting.  I have two comments
> at the moment.
>
> 1) I find the use of the term 'determines' problematic. That's because it
> suggests, strongly, causality, even an efficient causality. I don't think
> that the semiosic triad functions in a linear deterministic manner; the
> Relations are far more interactional and dynamic.
>
> 2) I'm wondering about the diagram of the 'triad of dyadic relations'.
> ???? Since the semiosic triad can't be broken down into dyads..then...??
> Also, you have the lines of interaction from the MIDDLE of the Relation [eg
> between the O-S].  How can an interaction originate from the middle of
> another interaction? My understanding of interactions/Relations is that
> they take place at nodal sites - and only at nodal sites, where different
> lines of interactions meet/merge/transform.
>
> Edwina
-----------------------------
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 .




Reply via email to