Jon, list - I know and agree that Peirce uses the term 'determines' and this is
a 19th century usage but Jeff wasn't quoting Peirce in the diagrams. I think
that when one is explaining semiosis, as in Jeff's diagrams, then, one has to
be careful of the modern meaning of the term. Therefore, in the diagram, to say
that O determines S; O determines I ...etc...needs more explanation and
consideration of its modern meaning, which is less about constraint and more
about linear causality.
Yes, I understand the dyadic Relations, [examined at length in the Welby
letters], i.e., the sign/representamn relation to the object; and its relation
to the Interpretant. My reference to the the semiosic triad is not a reference
to the relation between the Interpretant and Object, but to the depth-relation,
so to speak, of the Representamen-in-itself.
Agreed - the sign/representamen will function in a relation "to the object on
the one hand and to an interpretant on the other, in such a way as to bring the
interpretant into a relation to the object, corresponding to its own relation
to the object" 8.332.
But this, in practical terms, has to be examined. And here is a question -
which I cannot figure out. For example, a rhematic indexical legisign. here, we
have the relation between the representamen-object in a mode of Secondness.
Then, the Representamen itself is in a mode of Thirdness. And..the Relation
between the Representamen and the Interpretant is in a mode of Firstness.
So- is it the case that the 'Interpretant is in a relation to the Object...in a
mode of Secondness? The Relation between the R-I is, again, in a mode of
Firstness. So, again, is the I-O relation in a mode of Secondness? Of, is it
rather the case that this semiosis activity must continue on, for some time
until that I-O relation does indeed correlate with the R-O Relation? Isn't this
what Peirce meant by eventually arriving at the truth?
----- Original Message -----
From: Jon Alan Schmidt
To: Edwina Taborsky
Cc: Peirce List
Sent: Saturday, September 17, 2016 5:34 PM
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Relations of determination--three diagrams to
highlight the strata of possibles, existents and necessitants in the 10-fold
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.
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
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
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