Mary,
I assume you’re referring to the diagram that’s used to represent the triadic relation sign-object-interpretant. Yes, it’s a long-running debate whether we should use a triangle or a three-spoke diagram. As far as I know, Peirce himself never used either one for that particular triadic relation. Personally I don’t think it matters much which one you use, as long as you recognize that relation as triadic. The diagram in Lowell 3.4 of “a spot with three tails” represents a rheme, or predicate, with three subjects. But according to the conventions of existential graphs, the subjects must be logical individuals, or existing things, which would never be the case with all three of the sign-object-interpretant triad; so you can’t use a beta graph to represent that relation. A beta graph represents a proposition, and a “spot with three tails” represents a rheme with its subjects left blank. Peirce’s term “tail” is somewhat ambiguous, as the “tails” could be either “hooks” (“pegs,” blanks) or the lines of identity attached to them. I’m being called away, that’s all I can say right now! Gary f. From: Mary Libertin [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 12-Dec-17 10:32 To: [email protected] Cc: [email protected] Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Lowell Lecture 3.4 Gary, list, I prefer the use of Peirce’s Icon/index/symbol of a “genuine triadic relation”—“a node with three lines of identity” instead of a triangle. Ogden popularized the Peircean concept of triangle in an appendix in his book “The Meaning of Meaning”, and that triangle has been repeated over and over. I believe the node with three lines of identity makes immediate, diagrammatic sense and I believe shows forth the openness inherent in triadic relations. I’d like to investigate this—its historical context, literature on it, etc. Do you think I’m making sense, and /or can you point me in the right direction? Thanks. Mary Libertin On Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 7:01 AM <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > wrote: Continuing from Lowell Lecture 3.3, https://fromthepage.com/jeffdown1/c-s-peirce-manuscripts/ms-464-465-1903-lowell-lecture-iii-3rd-draught/display/13884 I will sketch a proof that the idea of Meaning is irreducible to those of Quality and Reaction. It depends on two main premisses. The first is that every genuine triadic relation involves meaning, as meaning is obviously a triadic relation. The second is that a triadic relation is inexpressible by means of dyadic relations alone. Considerable reflexion may be required to convince yourself of the first of these premisses, that every triadic relation involves meaning. There will be two lines of inquiry. First, all physical forces appear to subsist between pairs of particles. This was assumed by Helmholtz in his original paper on the Conservation of Forces. Take any fact in physics of the triadic kind, by which I mean a fact which can only be defined by simultaneous reference to three things, and you will find there is ample evidence that it never was produced by the action of forces on mere dyadic conditions. Thus, your right hand is that hand which is toward the east, when you face the north with your head toward the zenith. Three things, east, west, and up, are required to define the difference between right and left. Consequently chemists find that those substances which rotate the plane of polarization to the right or left can only be produced from such active substances. They are all of such complex constitution that they cannot have existed when the earth was very hot, and how the first one was produced is a puzzle. It cannot have been by the action of brute forces. For the second branch of the inquiry, you must train yourself to the analysis of relations, beginning with such as are very markedly triadic, gradually going on to others. In that way, you will convince yourself thoroughly that every genuine triadic relation involves thought or meaning. Take, for example, the relation of giving. A gives B to C. This does not consist in A's throwing B away and its accidentally hitting C, like the date-stone, which hit the Jinnee in the eye. If that were all, it would not be a genuine triadic relation, but merely one dyadic relation followed by another. There need be no motion of the thing given. Giving is a transfer of the right of property. Now right is a matter of law, and law is a matter of thought and meaning. I there leave the matter to your own reflection, merely adding that, though I have inserted the word “genuine,” yet I do not really think that necessary. I think even degenerate triadic relations involve something like thought. The other premiss of the argument that genuine triadic relations can never be built of dyadic relations and of Qualities is easily shown. In Existential Graphs, a spot with one tail —X represents a quality, a spot with two tails —R— a dyadic relation. Joining the ends of two tails is also a dyadic relation. But you can never by such joining make a graph with three tails. You may think that a node connecting three lines of identity is not a triadic idea. But analysis will show that it is so. I see a man on Monday. On Tuesday I see a man, and I exclaim, “Why, that is the very man I saw on Monday.” We may say, with sufficient accuracy, that I directly experienced the identity. On Wednesday I see a man and I say, “That is the same man I saw on Tuesday, and consequently is the same I saw on Monday.” There is a recognition of triadic identity; but it is only brought about as a conclusion from two premisses, which is itself a triadic relation. If I see two men at once, I cannot by any such direct experience identify both of them with a man I saw before. I can only identify them if I regard them, not as the very same, but as two different manifestations of the same man. But the idea of manifestation is the idea of a sign. Now a sign is something, A, which denotes some fact or object, B, to some interpretant thought, C. 347. It is interesting to remark that while a graph with three tails cannot be made out of graphs each with two or one tail, yet combinations of graphs of three tails each will suffice to build graphs with every higher number of tails. And analysis will show that every relation which is tetradic, pentadic, or of any greater number of correlates is nothing but a compound of triadic relations. It is therefore not surprising to find that beyond these three elements of Firstness, Secondness, and Thirdness, there is nothing else to be found in the phenomenon. http://gnusystems.ca/Lowell3.htm }{ Peirce’s Lowell Lectures of 1903 -- null
----------------------------- 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 .
