List,
This post continues the inquiry into the triadic triple. (see post of Sunday,
Oct 28.)
In this post, I will comment on the interpretations of the triadic triples of
John F Sowa.
see section 6.6, p. 396-398, 2000. Later versions have also been published.
CSP proposed the triadic triple of”
>> Qualisign Sinsign Legisign
>> Icon Index Symbol
>> Rhema Dicisign Argument
JFS interprets these 9 terms with an example of a pseudo failure of a phone
which occurred when the dog barked. The causal relation was due to the dog
lease was short circuited with the telephone wires. He posted Figure 6.14 on
this list recently.
As I interpret this Figure, the rows and columns of the CSP table is augmented
by three more terms.
The augmented terms for columns are the three terms, 1. Quality, 2.
Indexicality 3. Mediation
The augmental terms for rows are 1. Material 2. Relational and 3. Formal
Thus, as I understand this table, each of the nine triadic triple terms given
above are augmented by two further terms. Consequently, as I read this table,
three separate and distinct terms are included in the interpretation of each
element of the 3x3 table.
Within each box within the 3 x 3 rectangle, a further interpretative phrase is
adjoined to each of the nine terms of the triadic triple.
These are:
Qualisign A quality which is a sign.
Sinsign An actual existent thing or event which is a sign.
Legisign A law which is a sign.
Icon -Refers by virtue of some similarity to object.
Index -Refers by virtue of being affected by the object.
Symbol -Refers by virtue of some law or association.
Rheme - A sign of a qualitative possibility.
Decent Sign - A sign of actual existence.
Argument - A sign of law.
On first reading, I was impressed with this example of a barking dog and the
explanation of the context via these nine terms. It is a good pragmatic
narrative that interprets the facts.
In Figure 6.15, a diagram shows the projected relations between quali-signs and
neural networks.
With each of many subsequent readings, I slowly lost my enthusiasm. for this
Figure.
In particular, my belief waned for several reason, but three come to mind.
1. How do these augmented terms relate to mapping from icons to rhemes and the
role of monads, dyads, etc as “blank” terms in propositional sentences? see CW
3.418 - 421.
2. How do these augmented terms relate to abductive logic?
3. How do these augmented terms relate to scientific symbol systems?
In other words, my search for a path from these augmented terms to pragmatic
examples that fit all nine of the terms into a meaningful scientific example
failed for several years.
So, several years ago, I started to search for such a hypothetical path that
would conserve the conceptual context of the triadic triple and logically
support the numerical calculations used in the pragmatic sciences.
Perhaps some readers may find Fig. 6.14 and 6.15 meaningful in a general sense;
that is, not restricted to the singular example of the barking dog.
Alternative interpretations of the nine terms of the triadic triple can be
informed from considerations of the symbolic deixis. Such alternatives can
lead to nascent compositions related to abductive reasoning.
Cheers
Jerry
> On Nov 9, 2018, at 3:55 PM, Jerry LR Chandler <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> List, JAS,
>
> First, thank you Jon for the reference to J K Sheriff’s work.
>
> His table of relations among the triadic triples is rather cute. Cute, but
> hardly compelling.
> But, his attempt to constrain the triadic triples to both columns and rows
> seems ill-advised from the perspective of logic.
>
> The potential formal logical nature of the triadic triple seems to be
> excluded from this (Sheriff) perspectives of the categorization of nine
> terms. In particular, in my interpretation of the table, the bottom right
> corner of the matrix, which CSP labels as “argument”, infers the purpose of
> the matrix is to construct a material proposition that may be True or False,
> and which is true if and only if it is compossible into a symbol that
> represents the legisign.
>
> The generalized question is whether or not a thirdnesses of representation
> (Rhema) maps to the thirdnesses of legi-signs. Would you like to opine on
> this particular form (or proform?) of categorization?
>
> JFS has subsequently noted (on Nov. 2, 2018)
> "For EGs, Peirce used the terms monad, dyad, triad, tetrad, pentad...
> He also showed that relations with more than 3 "logical subjects"
> could be defined in terms of relations with 3 or less. He also
> observed that a proposition or dicent sign is a medad.”
>
> CSP associates the “matrix of terms of the triadic triple with the
> relationships to blanks in propositional space. It appears to me that
> Sheriff misses this vital concept in the composition of his interpretation of
> the triadic triple.
>
> (I cite JFS paragraph merely for convenience of time.)
>
> I will offer my own interpretation in a later post, which will differ sharply
> from JFS categorization of the triadic triple. I plan to connect the triadic
> triple to the composition of arguments, using a schema of reasoning that is
> consistent with modern scientific diagrammatic reasoning over the matrix of
> the nine terms.
> I will seek to include a reason for developing the generative notion of
> abductive logic.
>
> Cheers
>
> Jerry
>
>
>
>> On Oct 31, 2018, at 2:34 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt <[email protected]
>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>>
>> Jerry C., List:
>>
>> As I have said before, I do not have John Sowa's book. I suppose that I
>> could request it via Interlibrary Loan, but it would take at least a few
>> days to get to me. I will ask again--could you (or John himself) please
>> post an image of Figure 6.14, so that I can better understand what you mean
>> by "any complete schema for addressing all nine terms of the triple triad in
>> a coherent narrative"? Does this table from a 1981 paper by John K.
>> Sheriff, "Charles S. Peirce and the Semiotics of Literature," perhaps fit
>> the bill?
>>
>> <image.png>
>>
>> It also appeared in his 1994 book, Charles Peirce's Guess at the Riddle.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
>> Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman
>> www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt
>> <http://www.linkedin.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt> - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
>> <http://twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt>
>> On Sun, Oct 28, 2018 at 9:23 PM Jerry LR Chandler
>> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>> List, JonAS:
>>
>> Shortly after you posted this message, I departed on an extended business
>> trip and sort of dropped out of this discussion. Recent thoughts bring me
>> back around to these questions from a different and I believe, a better
>> grounded perspective on the grammar of the triple triad.
>>
>> The specific triple triad that I am referring too is as follows:
>>
>> Qualisign Sinsign Legisign
>> Icon Index Symbol
>> Rhema Dicisign Argument
>>
>> Over the past two decades, inquiries into these nine terms have resulted in
>> multiple “back and forths” among list members. Often, these posts have
>> included two or three or four of these terms and there interrelated meanings
>> and associated grammatical renderings.
>>
>> In one exceptional case, John Sowa has opened new territory by presenting a
>> detailed narrative that related all nine terms. This is in Figure 6.14 of
>> his book, Knowledge Representation (2000). The book is directed toward
>> Artificial Intelligence students as well as others. One should also note
>> Gary R.s schema is somehow related to this issue.
>>
>> Several years ago, I posted to this list serve, a narrative that was
>> coherent for four of the nine terms,
>>
>> Qualisign Sinsign
>> Icon Index
>>
>> I now have reason to believe that this is only partially correct with
>> respect to CSP’s views on material propositions.
>>
>> The following open question is addressed to all list members.
>>
>> Is anyone aware of any complete schema for addressing all nine terms of the
>> triple triad in a coherent narrative?
>>
>> This is a (rather superficial) search is for any published or un-published
>> schema. If anyone has unpublished versions that they wish to keep private,
>> please respond to my private email and I will respect your confidentiality.
>>
>> To re-iterate, has anyone else besides John Sowa developed a coherent view
>> of CSP triple triad?
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>> Jerry
>>
>> -----------------------------
>> 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] <mailto:[email protected]> . To UNSUBSCRIBE,
>> send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected]
>> <mailto:[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 .
