Edwina, list: You said: *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?*
Yes. So, where is this object? On this list, it's what Peirce said. But you said different than what Jon said about what Peirce said. But what is it Peirce said about? That's really the object. Best, Jerry R On Sat, Sep 17, 2016 at 6:01 PM, Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca> wrote: > 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?* > > Edwina > > ----- Original Message ----- > *From:* Jon Alan Schmidt <jonalanschm...@gmail.com> > *To:* Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca> > *Cc:* Peirce List <peirce-l@list.iupui.edu> > *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 classification > > 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 > . > > > > > > > ----------------------------- > 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 > . > > > > > >
----------------------------- 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 .
