Gary F- thanks for your comments, but I disagree with your
explanation.
A dyad is between TWO existential entities. A Relation, such as
between the Representamen and the Interpretant is not between two
existential entities, but is an interaction that actually enables
both to function. Neither exists per se on their own - and therefore
- this is NOT a dyad. A dyadic interaction would be a rock hitting
the water. Two existential 'things'; rock and water. That is NOT a
RELATION.
I have said repeatedly that I do NOT consider these interactions to
be dyads. So - why keep bringing it up?
The Peircean 'spoke' is not a triad of dyadic interactions. But, to
me, a model showing how ONE semiosic process, the Sign [capital S]
functions as a whole within three - not one- but three Relations. The
Relation between the Representamen-Object; that between the
R-Interpretant; and the R in itself. Each of them can be in a
different categorical mode.
"Every triadic relationship involves three dyadic relationships and
three monadic characters" 6.331
BUT - "every triad is either monadically degenerate, dyadically
degenerate or geuine. A monadically degenerate triad is one which
results from the essence of three monads, its subjects" 1.473. NOTE -
this is what you, Gary F, seem to be suggesting - with your comments
on 'subjects'...
Peirce continues: "A dyadically degenerate triad is one which
results from dyads" 1.473. NOTE: This - is what you, Gary, seem to be
suggesting is my view.
Peirce continues: "A genuine triad is one which cannot be resolved
in any such way..." 1.473. NOTE: And the genuine triad introduces
the mediation of generalization among its interactors - and THIS is
what makes the triadic interaction 'genuine'......"the genuine triad
must involve generality" 1.477
Then, Peirce goes on to explain the nature of 'it involves a sign,
or representamen, of some kind outward or inward, mediating between
an object and an interpreting thought" 1.480.
And I referenced Peirce's writing on Relations - 8.335-7. I won't
repeat them.
My point is that the triad is a complex process of transformation of
information. That is why I cannot see it as ONE Relation but as a
complex one; of three Relations bonded irreducibly together.
Edwina
--
This message is virus free, protected by Primus - Canada's
largest alternative telecommunications provider.
http://www.primus.ca
On Thu 13/04/17 9:14 AM , [email protected] sent:
Gary R, Edwina, Jon S, list,
I probably shouldn’t intervene in this discussion, but I have to
say (one more time) that if we want to understand Peirce’s terms
— especially what he means by a triadic relation — we need to
read them in the context where Peirce uses them, not lift them out of
their context and drop them into a scheme of our own invention.
Edwina refers to an “'umbrella image' of the triad [1.347], which
is something like a three spoked umbrella: -
Links:
------
[1] http://www.unav.es/gep/SeminariodeTienne.html
[2]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'[email protected]\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
-----------------------------
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 .
