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 <[email protected]> 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 [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 .
