Dear list, "In an illuminating image, Aristotle compares the use made by the noetic soul of phantasia to the role of diagrams in geometry:
*It is impossible even to think (noein) without a mental picture (phantasmatos). The same affection (pathos) is involved in thinking (noein) as in drawing a diagram; for in this case although we make no use of the fact that the magnitude of a triangle is a finite quality…In the same way the man who is thinking (ho noon), though he may not be thinking of a finite magnitude, still puts a finite magnitude before his eyes, though he does not think of it as such. And even if the nature of the object is quantitative, but indeterminate, he still puts before him a finite magnitude, although he thinks of it as merely quantitative. Why it is impossible to think of anything without continuity (tou synechous) or to think of things which are timeless except in terms of time, is another question. * ~ White, The Meaning of *Phantasia* in Aristotle's *De Anima*, III, 3–8 one two three.. synechism Best, Jerry R On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 5:05 PM, <g...@gnusystems.ca> wrote: > Helmut, > > It’s not that complicated. > > > > A triad is a *set of three* — three of anything. > > > > A trichotomy is a *division* of something into three — usually a division > of a type into three classes, or subtypes. For example, *signs* can be > subdivided into three classes, in various ways: icon/index/symbol, > rheme/dicisign/argument, and so on. Peirce’s classification of signs > includes ten trichotomies. > > > > In Peirce’s analysis of semiosis, every *sign* is correlated with an > *object* and an *interpretant*, and the interrelation of the three is > called a *triadic relation* because it relates a triad of correlates. > > > > Peirce’s “categories” could be called a “triad” because there are three of > them, but Peirce rarely if ever calls them a “triad.” He doesn’t call them > a “trichotomy” either: they are “irreducible elements” of any and all > phenomena, according to Peirce’s phaneroscopic analysis, so they are not > arrived at by dividing phenomena into classes. They are arrived at by > prescinding from phenomena, by “prescissive abstraction.” > > > > Gary f. > > > > http://gnusystems.ca/wp/ }{ *Turning Signs* gateway > > > > *From:* Helmut Raulien [mailto:h.raul...@gmx.de] > *Sent:* 3-Aug-17 15:55 > > Kirsti, List, > > For me both (classification and triads) was and still is complex and hard > to understand. Before I have had a more or less proper understanding of the > sign triad, I did not understand sign classes, eg. what would be the > difference between "qualisign" and "icon". > > Another puzzling thing is, that a triad is a composition of categorial > parts, so an "AND"-matter. Classification means "either or" or "NAND", but > a legisign contains sinisigns and qualisigns. This is "AND", so where is > the "NAND"? The answer is, I think, that a legisign is composed of > sinisigns, which are composed of qualisigns. But composition is just a > matter different from classification. Therefore a sign relation is either a > quali- or a sini-, or a legisign, no matter what a sini- or a legisign is > composed of. > > So it was incorrect of me to have written, that classification and triads > are two different topics. Instead it would be more correct to say, that > they are two different things, but to understand one of them, you must have > had understood the other. Which, of course, is not possible (a paradoxon), > so it is necessary to read about both topics (make them one topic) to > understand both. > > So I agree with you having written: "Taking bits and pieces from CSP just > does not work. The "pieces" only > work in the context of his work as a whole." > > Best, > > Helmut > > > ----------------------------- > 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 .
