> On Feb 2, 2017, at 2:08 PM, Jon Awbrey <[email protected]> wrote: > > I had one of those Deja Vu Groundhog Day impressions that > we had discussed this question of triadic vs. trichotomic > way back at the turn of the millennium, but many searches
I think this *might* be the email you were thinking of. It’s from June 26, 2006. Apologies if someone else posted this. __________________________________________________ A triad is not a trichotomy! This is the source of a lot of confusion. I understood that by reading Gary's article. Now everything makes sense. - A triad is a relation between three things - A trichotomy is a division of something into three things 1) the TRICHOTOMIES of signs lead to the following divisions: - qualisign (1) sinsign (2) legisign (3) - icon (1) index (2) symbol (3) - Rheme (1) Dicisign (2) Argument (3) the 3 divisions obtained by trichotomies cannot have their place interchanged, a qualisign is associated to firstness and it will never be associated with secondness inside this division. The reason is that the categories themselves are used to perform the trichotomies. This is settled I think there is no discussion about that. 2) (S, O, I) however is a TRIAD, a genuine triad. Not a trichotomy... The elements of the relations are obtained by a triadic analysis - not through a "trichotomic" analysis. There is no reason why their position cannot change. this seems to be the source of a lot of confusion. PS: I won't have too much time to participate on the list these coming days. /JM
----------------------------- 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 .
