[PEIRCE-L] Re: Laws of Nature as Signs

Helmut, List ... Given that sign relations are special cases of triadic relations, we can get significant insight into the structures of both cases by examining a few simple examples of triadic relations, without getting distracted by all the extra features that come into play with sign

Re: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Laws of Nature as Signs, CSP's Procrustean Bed?

BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px; }Jon, list - yes, makes sense. Yes - I meant the internal Sign triadAnd yes, the three correlates are in 'other Sign relations'enables diversity Edwina -- This message is virus free, protected by Primus

Aw: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Laws of Nature as Signs

    Supplement: I have made a mistake with my explaining a relation with itself: If there is a set that has a relation with itself, this relation is not a subset of all tupels possibly formed by any two elements of this set, but of the set that would be formed by all tupels of the set and a copy

Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Laws of Nature as Signs, CSP's Procrustean Bed?

Edwina, List: ET: In a triadic spot/rhema/proposition which has three 'loose ends' or blank forms - which means, as I understand it, that it is open to being filled by some subject. So far, so good. The triadic Sign relation has three loose ends, which are filled by three subjects--the Sign

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Laws of Nature as Signs, CSP's Procrustean Bed?

List, Edwina > On Apr 13, 2017, at 4:18 PM, Edwina Taborsky wrote: > > Now- what am I missing in this view? I do not understand how your question(s) relate to the concept of identity. Perhaps if you can clearly state the premises and the conclusions of your arguments, I

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Laws of Nature as Signs, CSP's Procrustean Bed?

On 4/13/2017 3:59 PM, Jerry LR Chandler wrote: In my mind, I am left with an intractable question: Is a Procrustian Bed essential to understanding the role of the identity relation in CSP’s theory of logical graphs of relations? Or, is a semantic explanation possible? Peirce published his

Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Laws of Nature as Signs, CSP's Procrustean Bed?

Jerry, list - as someone with no background in chemistry, I have a few questions: 1) I understand your analysis using the 'doctrine of valency' in chemistry and, as you point out, Peirce was a chemist. Now, in Robert's, p.115, he shows several figures - and figure 3 'represents triadic

Aw: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Laws of Nature as Signs

Jon, List, You wrote, that a dyadic relation of anything to itself is simply identity. Well, I dont know, how far you can apply the mathematical "relation" to the Peircean, but in mathematics it is not so: Eg. you have the set (mouse, dog, elephant), and the dyadic relation reason is "smaller

Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Laws of Nature as Signs

Helmut, List: That is a very interesting suggestion, and some quick Googling confirms that Jon Awbrey has written about compositive vs. projective reduction in the past. He even cited the Sign relation as a specific example of a triadic relation that is "projectively reducible." I still wonder,

Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Laws of Nature as Signs

Edwina, List: I have to agree with Gary F. on interpreting the diagram in CP 1.347. As the text (beginning at CP 1.346) explicitly indicates, it is simply intended to illustrate how multiple triadic relations, each of which is designated by a different letter, can be combined to form

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Laws of Nature as Signs, CSP's Procrustean Bed?

List: (This post is rather technical and the contents may be intractably perplex for many readers of this list. One purpose of this post is to crisply separate the fundamental philosophical concept of identity from the mathematical concept of identity. To differentiate CSP view of lines of

RE: [PEIRCE-L] Laws of Nature as Signs

John, Thanks a lot! A most interesting post. I'll look up your paper. Even though I have approached these questions from a different angle , I wholly agree with your conlusion views on the nature of thirds. And on the arguments offered by Peirce. - It has seemed to me, too, that he did

Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Laws of Nature as Signs

BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px; } Jon - I see your point about what we have discussed is an INTERNAL semiosis of the Immediate Object-Representamen-Immediate Interpretant. I agree with this - since they are all in the same mode, then, I can understand

Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Laws of Nature as Signs

Gary F- thanks for your comments, but I disagree with your explanation. A dyad is between TWO existential entities. A Relation, such as between the Representamen and the Interpretant is not between two existential entities, but is an interaction that actually enables both to function.

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Laws of Nature as Signs

Edwina, List: Again, my understanding is that the three-spoke diagram represents one triadic relation. As such, it corresponds to only one of the ten trichotomies of 1908--the very last one, "the Triadic Relation of the Sign to the Dynamical Object and to its Normal Interpretant" (EP 2:483),

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Laws of Nature as Signs

Gary R, Edwina, Jon S, list, I probably shouldn’t intervene in this discussion, but I have to say (one more time) that if we want to understand Peirce’s terms — especially what he means by a triadic relation — we need to read them in the context where Peirce uses them, not lift them out of