Re: > Does there exist a text for dummies?
Once I was a dummy ...
and then I read Peirce's 1870 Logic Of Relatives ...
• https://oeis.org/wiki/Peirce%27s_1870_Logic_Of_Relatives_%E2%80%A2_Overview
and I gradually became ... long time passing ... slightly less of a dummy ...
There's a lot in Peirce's paper and my commentary on it
about relational composition, most of it in the sections
headed "The Signs for Multiplication".
There is also this article:
• https://oeis.org/wiki/Relation_composition
If you want to skip to the chase for the quickest possible overview,
the sorts of pictures that float through my head when I'm thinking
about relational composition are the bigraph pictures in this part:
• https://oeis.org/wiki/Relation_composition#Graph-theoretic_picture
Regards,
Jon
On 5/6/2020 12:51 PM, Helmut Raulien wrote:
Jon, List,
Thank you, Jon! I do have to say, that have had a concept of composition, of
which Robert and Jon A.S. said it is not good, and it rather is all about
determination and correlates. The concept of composition was, that a secondness
would consist of two, and a thirdness of three parts, and this would go on
eternally. Like, for example, a dynamic object (2.2.) consists of (2.2.1.) and
(2.2.2.). I thought, this would make sense, as there might be identified two
parts of the dynamic object: Its conceptuality outside the sign, and its
ontologic part (outside too).
This way, there were 3, 6, 10, 15, 21, and so on parts. But the sign classes are
not created this way, but by regarding determination of correlates, and this way
there are 10, 28, 66 sign classes. How this is done, I have not yet understood.
Does there exist a text for dummies?
By comparing AB-AC-BC with SS-SO-SI, I thougt to have had identified the
nonexistent OI- relation for a "missing link". In spite of the catchiness of
this term, I have the hunch, that this my stream of consideration might be based
on not having understood the signtree and the determination issue, and I should
work on this understanding before. But nevertheless I am very much looking
forward to your answer and the subject of projective reduction in case of the
sign!
Best,
Helmut
>
05. Mai 2020 um 21:40 Uhr "Jon Awbrey" <[email protected]> wrote:
Helmut,
I've been trying to get back to your message of 4/12/2020
under the subject line "Categories and Speculative Grammar",
but I'll reply under Robert's original subject line as the
profusion of titles has been derailing my train of thought.
Some of the material you allude to below has gone missing
off the live web, and the fragments I can still find need
a bit of reformatting, so I'll go address those issues and
return to these questions as soon as I can.
Regards,
Jon
On 4/12/2020 3:21 PM, Helmut Raulien wrote:> Jon, All,
I vaguely remember about irreducibility and reducibility something like, that
a triad is compositionally (or another adverb with "c") not reducible to dyads,
but projectively is, usually, the triad being ABC, to AB, BC, and AC. Now, in
the case of sign it is different: The (projective or whatever) reducibility goes
SS, SO, SI. What is missing here, would be OI, at least in Peircean theory,
while in Ogden/Richard´s theory a relation between object and interptretant does
exist. I think it is called "meaning", obviously being some ontological thing,
while with Peirce a meaning without a sign´s partaking can not exist. I hope I
have not gotten it totally wrong now.
Anyway, I feel that a sign relation is a triadic relation, but a quite special
kind of such. Its special way of being able to be projectively reduced to dyads
opens ways of relations based on projection (or whatever) consisting of more
than three: Six, to start with, but really as many as you will, as every
secondness (DO, DI) may analytically be splitted into two more, and every
thirdness (FI) into three more.
Is that probably so?
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 [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 .
