Mike, List: MB: We could say that the phrase 'triadic action' approaches being a technical term, and we cannot deny that Peirce used it ...
No one is denying that Peirce used it; on the contrary, I quoted the (only) two specific passages where he did so, and then offered my interpretation of them. "Triadic action" is dyadic action undertaken for a *purpose*, governed by a *law*, or occurring in a *medium*. The purpose, law, or medium is the element of 3ns; the actions themselves, and the Existents participating in them, are elements of 2ns. An Instance of a Sign--i.e., an event of concrete semiosis--is likewise a "triadic action" in the sense that the production of an *individual *Dynamic Interpretant by an *individual *Sign-Replica is governed by the *genuine *triadic relation between the Dynamic Object, Sign, and Final Interpretant. MB: Not to mention other references to mediating action which are not specifically labeled 'triadic action,' which I am sure number many more than two references. Unlike "triadic action," the term "mediating action" does not appear in CP or EP *at all*. If there are specific passages where Peirce used the word *action *to describe mediation, I would be glad to review and consider them. MB: Picking and choosing which Peirce quotes to insist are the absolute truth while denying the clear language of other quotes is not a good way to advance scholarly discussion. If I have been guilty of this, I would sincerely appreciate being shown where. At least I routinely *provide* Peirce quotes as purported warrant for my claims, rather than simply making bare assertions. Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt On Fri, Aug 10, 2018 at 9:15 AM, Mike Bergman <m...@mkbergman.com> wrote: > Gary R, Jon, list, > > +1 > > This is another thread that has devolved into silliness. No one is trying > to deny Peirce's technical terms, no one is being obdurate, and no one is > saying anything other than we use natural language to communicate, and it > has vagaries of interpretation. > > We could say that the phrase 'triadic action' approaches being a technical > term, and we cannot deny that Peirce used it, especially in his later years > when supposedly his assertions have more value than his earlier ones. (Not > to mention other references to mediating action which are not specifically > labeled 'triadic action,' which I am sure number many more than two > references.) Furthermore, we can quote about these 'triadic actions' and > then deny them, claiming they are all just 'relations' that should be > expressed as dyadic actions. Picking and choosing which Peirce quotes to > insist are the absolute truth while denying the clear language of other > quotes is not a good way to advance scholarly discussion. > > I will comment no further on this thread. > > Mike > -- > > __________________________________________ > > Michael K. Bergman > Cognonto Corporation > 319.621.5225skype:michaelkbergmanhttp://cognonto.comhttp://mkbergman.comhttp://www.linkedin.com/in/mkbergman > __________________________________________ > >
----------------------------- 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 .
