[peirce-l] Re: Sinsign, Legisign, Qualisign - help!

[Jim Piat]

Wilfred wrote:   "Is it not the case that even notions of left and right in a triadic Peirce relation require the consideration of a multiple relation of multiple directions? I mean, even if the left and the right are set (like A-----B) and (B------A) in the example below, there are still many more X’s (signs) then the C around the B and the A."   Dear Wilfred,   Yes, I think you are right.  Actually I was trying to make the point that it required three and only three dimensions of space to account for handedness or the notion of left and right but in my haste and limited spatial sence (not knowing my own left from my right) came up with the unfortunate illustration.   Actually, in three dimensions any asymetrical object would do (in three dimensions) as an illustration of handedness.     Consider the following two dimensional figures  < and >.   If one can rotate them they can be superimposed and thus lack an inherent left or right.   In the case of aysmetric two dimensional objects such as I-  and -I if one is allowed to rotate them in a thrid dimension then they also can be superimposed and thus lack an inherent left or right.  But any asymetrical object fixed in three dimensions (ie one with a front and back,  up and down, and left and right) such as our own hands (hence the term) can not be rotated so as to be superimposed and thus have an inherent left and right (or handedness).   For an object to be so fixed in three dimensions requires *three*  and only three distinct points,  not *four*, as I think Jerry Chandler was suggesting.  What the situation might be in the case of a space of higher than three dimensions I will not hazard a guess as I'm having enough trouble with this example.  Well actually my guess is that higher dimensions would not require more than three points to account for handedness as handedness is a property of three dimensions but that's just my guess.    As before I'm not sure I've properly understood Peirce but I hope the above example at least clarifies the issue a bit more and addresses your concerns.  I think handedness is a fundamental example of what Peirce meant by a triadic relation so if I've still got this wrong I hope to be further corrected.   Best wishes, Jim Piat --- Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber archive@mail-archive.com