Hi Edwina, list:
You said, “Agreed - we shouldn't seek consensus. “ J "it is unlikely that you are not mistaken but why such absolute truth?" In this way Hegel advances until he reaches the 'Absolute Idea', which, according to him, has no incompleteness, no opposite, and no need of further development. The Absolute Idea, therefore, is adequate to describe Absolute Reality. Best, Jerry R On Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 2:10 PM, Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> wrote: > Agreed - we shouldn't seek consensus. Not only is such > closure unscientific but we are not a large or diverse enough group to > substantiate a scientifically valid consensus. > > I'm not against the triangle as such - as in, for example, that Lady > Welby classification triangle of the signs to which you refer. As you say, > this is a static image and not meant to imagize the process of the > Object-Representamen-Interpretant triad. My focus on the 'spoke' is only > to imagize the semiosic O-R-I process as am open and networking > interaction. > > By the way - you write: " first, chance 'sporting' (1ns), then, the > possibility of new habit-formation (3ns), and finally the possibility of a > evolutionary, say, structural change (2ns).". Wouldn't you say that before > the habit-formation emerges, that there have to be incidents in a mode of > Secondness..which might vanish or might exist long enough to interact with > each other and form those habits? > > I refer to 1.412 [A guess at the Riddle] - where Peirce writes: .." there > would have come something,.by the principle of Firstness...then by the > principle of habit there would have been a second flash...."...But > Secondness is of two types. consequently besides flashes genuinely second > to others, so as to come after them, there will be pairs of flashes, or, > since time is now supposed to have developed, we had better say pairs of > states, which are reciprocally second, each member of the pair to the > other. This is the first germ of spatial extension. These states will > undergo changes; and habits will be formed of passing from certain states > to certain others, and of not passing from certain states to certain > others"... > > My reading of the above is that the FLASH [energy into matter?] operates > within its own Firstness and Thirdness [habit]..but the matter that is > formed in these flashes exists first, in Secondness since this matter is > both temporally and spatially existent. Then, these 'states'/bits of matter > will develop their own habits..and so on. > > Edwina > > > > > > On Tue 12/12/17 2:42 PM , Gary Richmond [email protected] sent: > > Edwina, Mary, Gary f, list, > > I can't say that I experience the horror that Edwina does with the use of > the triangle for specific analyses and, in point of fact, Peirce himself > uses is for certain purposes (see, for example, the famous diagram of the > classification of signs which he sent to Lady Welby). Admittedly such an > analysis of sign classes is relatively static, but that is perhaps the > point: that for particular purposes of phenomenological, metaphysical, and > semiotic tricategorial analysis (although, perhaps, not in representing any > particular semiosis) that the triangle can be helpful. > > But more than that, the triangle is quite useful when considering movement > through the categories (which paths of movement I've called categorial > vectors) where a bent arrow shows which of the 6 possible vectors is in > play. > > [image: Blocked image] > > (I have renamed the vector of analysis that of involution, although both > terms can be found in Peirce's paper, "The Mathematics of Logic"). > > For example, taking the vector at the top of the diagram, Peirce says in > the N.A. that there are three stages to a discrete inquiry (which involves > what I call the vector of process) which begins with a hypothesis (1ns), > after which the implications of the hypothesis are deduced for the purpose > of devising an experimental testing of the hypothesis (3ns), followed by > the inductive testing itself (2ns). This 'movement through the categories' > is, in my opinion, best illustrated by a bent arrow either within or > outside of a triangle. That the process doesn't end there is well > illustrated by John Sowa's 'Knowledge Soup' diagram. > > As I've noted here before, this process vector is the very same one > Peirce offers for biological evolution, namely, first, chance 'sporting' > (1ns), then, the possibility of new habit-formation (3ns), and finally the > possibility of a evolutionary, say, structural change (2ns). Again, if you > see the process as triadic, it most certainly doesn't *end* with that > evolutionary adaptation. Yet, for me being able to see the direction of the > several vectors, comparing (as I just did with inquiry and biological > evolution), or contrasting them (for example, contrasting both inquiry and > evolution with the semiotic path (the vector of determination) whereas > the object (2ns) determines the representamen (1ns) which determines the > interpretant 3ns) can potentially reveal interesting new relations. > > So, I agree with Gary F: > > Yes, it’s a long-running debate whether we should use a triangle or a > three-spoke diagram. . . Personally I don’t think it matters much which > one you use, as long as you recognize that relation as triadic. > > > And yet (1) it is especially important in, for example, considering the -> > representamen -> interpretant path that "you recognize that relation as > triadic" and, in the sense of infinite semiosis, neither linear nor > arriving at an end point) and (2) for many purposes the three spoked > diagram is indeed. preferable. But for some, especially certain analytical > purposes, the triangle proves quite helpful. > > This is one of those areas where I think the decision as to which (the > triangle or the spoke) manner of diagramming a triadic relation is most > useful for her purposes ought be left up to the individual inquirer, that > we ought not insist on what is right or wrong (seek consensus) for others > in this matter. > > Best, > > Gary R > > [image: Blocked image] > > Gary Richmond > Philosophy and Critical Thinking > Communication Studies > LaGuardia College of the City University of New York > 718 482-5690 <(718)%20482-5690> > > On Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 12:47 PM, Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Mary, list - I fully agree with you. I have always been horrified - and I >> mean the word - by the use of the triangle to portray the semiosic triad. >> It is, in my view, so completely wrong, for it sets up a closed linear path. >> >> The' node connecting three lines of identity' [1.347] is, in my view, the >> correct image, for as Peirce points out - it clearly shows how such a node >> and its relations is networked almost to infinity with other such formats. >> As you say - it shows the 'openness inherent in triadic relations'. >> >> Edwina - >> >> >> >> On Tue 12/12/17 3:32 PM , Mary Libertin [email protected] sent: >> >> 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]> 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 >>> [image: >>> Blocked image] 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. >>> >>> [image: Blocked image] >>> >>> 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> >> 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 > [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 > . > > > > > >
----------------------------- 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 .
