Edwina, List: I am not seeking another debate, just making a good-faith effort to understand.
Thanks, Jon On Thu, Feb 9, 2017 at 10:34 AM, Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> wrote: > Jon- I've said before that I don't find it fruitful to engage in debate > with you, so, I'll just repeat: > > My use of the term *triadic relations* was straight from Peirce and I > don't see the point of your first paragraph below. The trichotomies divide > ALL correlates/relations of the triad into the three modal categories. > Exactly as i've said before. > > Your interest in my papers is fascinating, but you misunderstand the > informational term of 'node' and 'horizon of influence' - which is not the > same as an interaction between two separate existential entities. > > That's all. > > Edwina > > ----- Original Message ----- > *From:* Jon Alan Schmidt <[email protected]> > *To:* Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> > *Cc:* Peirce List <[email protected]> > *Sent:* Thursday, February 09, 2017 10:57 AM > *Subject:* Re: [PEIRCE-L] Possible Article of Interest - CSP's "Mindset" > from AI perspective > > Edwina, List: > > CP 2.233-242 discusses *triadic relations* and identifies > Representamen/Object/Interpretant as a paradigmatic example of one. > Peirce also states, "A *Sign *is a representamen of which some > interpretant is a cognition of a mind"--not a triadic entity, but "the > First Correlate of a triadic relation." CP 2.243-253 then discusses the > three *trichotomies*, which do not divide "triadic relations" in general, > but Signs in particular--"first, according as the sign in itself is a mere > quality, is an actual existent, or is a general law; secondly, according as > the relation of the sign to its object consists in the sign's having some > character in itself, or in some existential relation to that object, or in > its relation to an interpretant; thirdly, according as its Interpretant > represents it as a sign of possibility or as a sign of fact or a sign of > reason." CP 2.254-264 then presents the ten Sign *classifications*. > > I recently re-read a couple of your online papers in an effort to > understand your model better. My suggestion that it treats the three > relations as dyadic comes from "The Methodology of Semiotic Morphology: An > Introduction" (http://see.library.utoronto.ca/SEED/Vol5-2/Taborsky.htm). > > ET: A relation is a dyadic string, a primitive morphology of > inÂteraction, where two nodes functioning as horizons of influence connect > to provide within that range a measured configuration of data, information > or knowledge functioning within time and space – and mode. > > > This seems to be saying that *all *relations are dyadic and function > within time and space (i.e., exist). Am I misunderstanding, or has your > view perhaps changed since writing that piece? Note that CP 2.283 states, > "A genuine Index and its Object must be existent individuals (whether > things or facts), and its immediate Interpretant must be of the same > character." It does not say that *all *dyadic relations require both > correlates to be existents; after all, *any *relation that has only two > correlates--whether Possibles, Existents, or Necessitants--is dyadic by > definition. > > Regards, > > Jon > > On Thu, Feb 9, 2017 at 9:27 AM, Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Jon - I am using Peirce's term of *triadic relations*. See his Division >> of Sign, eg, 2.233 and all through that section. He uses the term of >> 'trichotomy' referring to whether the triadic relations are divisible by >> the three model categories. See. 2.238. >> >> I disagree with your view that my model sees them as *dyadic relations*. >> A dyadic relation can only be between two existential entities, and 'my >> model', as you refer to it, does not see the Representamen-Object >> interaction as between two existential entities. Same with the >> R-Interpretant, or R-R....these are NOT dyadic relations. See note to >> 2.239, which specifically says that a dyadic relation requires that both >> its correlates are existents. 2.283. I've explained this repeatedly to you >> before.... >> >> 'My model' as you refer to it [suggesting that it is not also that of >> Peirce??] does not view the Object as an object until it is in a triadic >> semiosic relation. Same with the Representamen and Interpretant. And as >> i've said, a triad of O-R-I can have that Interpretant functioning at the >> same time as an Object Relation in another triad. That's part of the >> Peircean networking. >> >> Edwina >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> *From:* Jon Alan Schmidt <[email protected]> >> *To:* Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> >> *Cc:* Peirce List <[email protected]> >> *Sent:* Thursday, February 09, 2017 10:05 AM >> *Subject:* Re: [PEIRCE-L] Possible Article of Interest - CSP's "Mindset" >> from AI perspective >> >> Edwina, List: >> >> Is it right to say that the nine terms in Peirce's three trichotomies are >> "triadic relations"? It seems to me that even in your model, they >> correspond to *dyadic *relations--the Representamen with itself, with >> its Object, and with its Interpretant. There is only one *triadic *relation >> in a given Sign, and it is not reducible to these three dyadic relations. >> In that sense, it is the ten Sign classifications--rather than the nine >> terms in three trichotomies--that characterize the triadic relation; i.e., >> a Qualisign has a different triadic relation than a Rhematic Indexical >> Legisign, which has a different triadic relation than an Argument, etc. On >> the other hand, in Peirce's later ten-trichotomy scheme, there is a >> specific division "According to the Triadic Relation of the Sign to its >> Dynamical Object and to its Normal Interpretant" (CP 8.344; 1908), which is >> associated with "the Nature of the Assurance of the Utterance: assurance >> of Instinct; assurance of Experience; assurance of Form" (CP 8.374; 1908). >> >> Regards, >> >> Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA >> Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman >> www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt >> >> On Thu, Feb 9, 2017 at 8:24 AM, Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> Mike - I think you are not alone in not understanding Jerry's post. His >>> comments on the 9 semiosic relations, which are *triadic relations* and >>> not triads, was in my view, bizarre and had nothing to do with Peirce's >>> analysis of their nature. >>> >>> With regard to your comment below on names, which are symbols - since >>> human thought is primarily via symbols - then, in a way, such symbols are >>> the 'instantiation' of the thought. I'm not sure what you mean by >>> 'necessary signs'..unless you mean the non-symbolic iconic and indexical >>> relations. >>> >>> 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 .
