Re: [PEIRCE-L] Dyadic relations within the triadic

Jerry C., List: I am afraid that your response was not very helpful to me. JLRC: In the triple, Qualisign, Icon, Rheme, the rheme of the Icon(s), is consistent with the measurements of the qualisigns. Every Qualisign is also an Icon and a Rheme, so I do not know what you mean by "the rheme of

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Dyadic relations within the triadic

Jon, List . > On Apr 20, 2017, at 2:21 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt > wrote: > > Jerry C., List: > > > What do you mean by "metrological potentials" or "metrological > considerations"? How do they relate to the thread topic? Would you mind > providing some examples? >

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Dyadic relations within the triadic

Jerry C., List: In the long quote that I included in my last post, Peirce acknowledged that the Sign sometimes *creates *its Object; but nevertheless, it remains the case that the Object *determines *the Sign, which shows that Peirce's usage of "determination" is not at all equivalent to

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Dyadic relations within the triadic

Jon, List: > On Apr 19, 2017, at 11:42 AM, Jon Alan Schmidt > wrote: > > Jerry C., List: > > To which specific hypotheses of mine are you referring? I was referring to this conjecture / statement / assertion / hypothesis/ antecedent /… >> Since everyone

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Dyadic relations within the triadic

List, Kirsti: > On Apr 19, 2017, at 11:51 AM, kirst...@saunalahti.fi wrote: > > Jerry, > Why would any pragmatic sign (even limited to science & techology > perspectives) be of natural kind? - Scientists and engineers do read and > write, do they not? Perhaps we mis-understand one another.

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Dyadic relations within the triadic

Jerry C., List: To which specific hypotheses of mine are you referring? What exactly do you mean by "reference terms" in those hypotheses? Thanks, Jon S. On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 10:31 AM, Jerry LR Chandler < jerry_lr_chand...@icloud.com> wrote: > Jon: > > JC: I am puzzled about why this

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Dyadic relations within the triadic

Jon: > > > JC: I am puzzled about why this question is of import to you. > > Since everyone (including Peirce) agrees that instead the Object determines > the Sign, Again, I suggest you examine your hypotheses more critically. > > JC: Are you rejecting the necessary hypothesis that

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Dyadic relations within the triadic

I thought signs were first simply because they are there before we begin any process. How then can anything be required of them? If they have a life it is the life we give them by virtue of faculties we might call utilities of thought. I am not sure if signs determine anything other than what we

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Dyadic relations within the triadic

Jerry C., List: JC: I am puzzled about why this question is of import to you. As we have been discussing in this thread, CP 2.235-238 seems to require that the Intepretant determines the Object, which determines the Sign, on the basis of relative complexity. Since everyone (including Peirce)

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Dyadic relations within the triadic

List, Jon: > On Apr 18, 2017, at 8:32 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt > wrote: > > If not, how else can we explain why it must be the case that the Object > determines the Sign, which determines the Intepretant? I am puzzled about why this question is of import to you. Are you

Re: Fw: [PEIRCE-L] Dyadic relations within the triadic

Jeff, List: As far as I know, your diagram is not consistent with any actual Sign classification that Peirce ever suggested, let alone developed. Either there are three correlates, but Signs are classified in terms of only one of them plus two relations (1903), or there are six correlates and

RE: Fw: [PEIRCE-L] Dyadic relations within the triadic

-17 12:42 To: Peirce-L <peirce-l@list.iupui.edu> Subject: Re: Fw: [PEIRCE-L] Dyadic relations within the triadic Gary F, List, At first i consideried writing you off-list since apparently my brain isn't functioning sufficiently well enough yet so as to avoid making silly

Re: Fw: [PEIRCE-L] Dyadic relations within the triadic

ery. That’s true, but I think it’s > worth pointing out that diagrams are also slippery with respect to their > connection with their dynamic objects — in this case, with the semiosis we > know from everyday experience. > > > > Gary f. > > > > *From:* Jon Alan Schmidt [mai

RE: Fw: [PEIRCE-L] Dyadic relations within the triadic

Re: Fw: [PEIRCE-L] Dyadic relations within the triadic Jeff, List: JD: I'm simply asking if there is any way to square what he seems to be saying on the face of the text in NDTR with what he says later--without supposing that he made a mistake or changed his mind. It is a question worth

Re: Fw: [PEIRCE-L] Dyadic relations within the triadic

Jeff, List: JD: I'm simply asking if there is any way to square what he seems to be saying on the face of the text in NDTR with what he says later--without supposing that he made a mistake or changed his mind. It is a question worth asking and exploring, but so far I have not been able to

RE: [PEIRCE-L] Dyadic relations within the triadic

Gary R, list, Actually, Gary, you compounded your mistake here, by typing “qualisign” where you meant “legisign.” (Well, I had a bad day yesterday too!) I do understand the basis of your nomenclature choice and acknowledge your right to make it. But I feel compelled to make a different

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Dyadic relations within the triadic

Gary F, List, Correction: off-list Gary F suggested that where I'd written But dicisigns *are* (along with Qualisigns and Sinsigns) *most certainly* signs, i.e., Representamen. that I probably meant, not Dicisign, but Qualisign. Yes, that* is* what I meant. Maybe I ought to start speaking of

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Dyadic relations within the triadic

Gary F, I guess I'll have to continue to at least partially disagree with you on one of the points you singled out. You quoted me then wrote: GR: “It is my understanding the 9 are NOT as GF wrote "classifications of Signs," rather, they are *parametric* [and]together (given certain constraints)

RE: [PEIRCE-L] Dyadic relations within the triadic

e-l@list.iupui.edu> Subject: RE: [PEIRCE-L] Dyadic relations within the triadic John C, By “represent it formally,” do you mean translate the verbal expression into an algebraic notation? Or perhaps an entirely nonverbal diagram? Since you say you have no idea how to represent it formally, and you’ve read

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Dyadic relations within the triadic

rtment of Philosophy Northern Arizona University (o) 928 523-8354 From: g...@gnusystems.ca <g...@gnusystems.ca> Sent: Monday, April 17, 2017 8:28 AM To: 'Peirce-L' Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Dyadic relations within the triadic Jon S, Gary R, Jeff, Hold the ph

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Dyadic relations within the triadic

Gary F., List: Right, Peirce's tenfold classification of Signs in NDTR is *not *based in any way on CP 2.235-238. The three trichotomies that he used in CP 2.243ff were not Sign, Object, and Interpretant *as correlates*; this was precisely the mistake that Hartshorne and Weiss made when they

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Dyadic relations within the triadic

> On Apr 15, 2017, at 12:14 PM, g...@gnusystems.ca wrote: > > Clark, yes, that’s why I was careful to qualify my comments by saying “In > NDTR.” But when you say that “what happens actually affects what is > possible,” what you mean is that what happens now affects what can possibly > happen

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Dyadic relations within the triadic

Jon S, Gary R, Jeff, Hold the phone . perhaps the scales have suddenly fallen from my eyes, but I now see the problem with CP 2.235-6 if it's applied to signs: the order of complexity as stated there is NOT consistent with the order of determination object > sign > interpretant. My point 3

RE: [PEIRCE-L] Dyadic relations within the triadic

ems.ca [mailto:g...@gnusystems.ca] Sent: 17-Apr-17 09:36 To: 'Peirce-L' <peirce-l@list.iupui.edu> Subject: RE: [PEIRCE-L] Dyadic relations within the triadic Jon S., OK, what I’ll do here is take CP 2.235-6 and apply it to signs on the assumption that the Sign is First Correlate an

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Dyadic relations within the triadic

Gary F.: Your #3 directly contradicts CP 2.235--the First Correlate (Sign) is a law, but the Third Correlate (Interpretant) need not be. Your #4 directly contradicts CP 2.236--the Third Correlate (Interpretant) is a mere possibility, but the First Correlate (Sign) need not be. Now, if we reverse

RE: [PEIRCE-L] Dyadic relations within the triadic

t;g...@gnusystems.ca> Cc: Peirce-L <peirce-l@list.iupui.edu> Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Dyadic relations within the triadic Gary F., List: Consider these two passages. CSP: The First Correlate is that one of the three which is regarded as of the simplest nature, being a mere possibilit

RE: [PEIRCE-L] Dyadic relations within the triadic

y Richmond [mailto:gary.richm...@gmail.com] Sent: 16-Apr-17 20:12 To: Peirce-L <peirce-l@list.iupui.edu> Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Dyadic relations within the triadic Gary F, Jon S, List, I'm afraid your post did *not* make me feel any less queasy. My comments are interleaved below preceeded

RE: [PEIRCE-L] Dyadic relations within the triadic

it formally, or tried to? Gary f. From: John Collier [mailto:colli...@ukzn.ac.za] Sent: 16-Apr-17 21:11 To: g...@gnusystems.ca; 'Peirce-L' <peirce-l@list.iupui.edu> Subject: RE: [PEIRCE-L] Dyadic relations within the triadic What you say may well be true, Gary, but I have no id

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Dyadic relations within the triadic

his > more mature writings such as NDTR. I, on the other hand, take him at face > value when he says that the essay was remarkably prescient, and that > he hasn't rejected any of he major points made in this earlier works. > > > --Jeff > > > Jeffrey Downard > Associate

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Dyadic relations within the triadic

losophy > Northern Arizona University > (o) 928 523-8354 <(928)%20523-8354> > > > -- > *From:* Jon Alan Schmidt <jonalanschm...@gmail.com> > *Sent:* Sunday, April 16, 2017 5:16 PM > *To:* Gary Fuhrman > *Cc:* Peirce-L > *Subject:* Re:

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Dyadic relations within the triadic

phy Northern Arizona University (o) 928 523-8354 From: Jon Alan Schmidt <jonalanschm...@gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, April 16, 2017 5:16 PM To: Gary Fuhrman Cc: Peirce-L Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Dyadic relations within the triadic Gary F., List: Consider these two

RE: [PEIRCE-L] Dyadic relations within the triadic

.edu>> Subject: RE: [PEIRCE-L] Dyadic relations within the triadic This is my understanding too, Gary F., though I have found the passage you quoted from Peirce especially hard to parse formally. The only time thee sign (I am assuming you mean representamen) might determine the objects is whe

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Dyadic relations within the triadic

Gary F., List: Consider these two passages. CSP: The First Correlate is that one of the three which is regarded as of the simplest nature, being a mere possibility if any one of the three is of that nature, and not being a law unless all three are of that nature. The Third Correlate is that one

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Dyadic relations within the triadic

Gary F, Jon S, List, I'm afraid your post did *not* make me feel any less queasy. My comments are interleaved below preceeded by GR: When I say that one aspect of semeiosis "determines" another, what I mean--because it is what I take Peirce to mean--is that the mode of the first *constrains *the

RE: [PEIRCE-L] Dyadic relations within the triadic

Jon S, see insert below … Gary f. From: Jon Alan Schmidt [mailto:jonalanschm...@gmail.com] Sent: 16-Apr-17 17:40 Gary R., List: GR: But surely, the most obvious thing, as Gary F reminds us, is that Peirce always says that the Object determines the Sign for the Interpretant ...

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Dyadic relations within the triadic

Gary F.: Responses to your responses below. Jon S. On Sun, Apr 16, 2017 at 5:47 PM, wrote: > Jon, > > > > I think i’m beginning to catch on to what you’re driving at, so I’ll > insert my responses below. I hope this doesn’t make you any queasier, Gary > R, as I have no

RE: [PEIRCE-L] Dyadic relations within the triadic

, as the correlates of a triadic relation must be distinct. Gary f. From: John Collier [mailto:colli...@ukzn.ac.za] Sent: 16-Apr-17 16:37 To: g...@gnusystems.ca; 'Peirce-L' <peirce-l@list.iupui.edu> Subject: RE: [PEIRCE-L] Dyadic relations within the triadic This is my understandi

RE: [PEIRCE-L] Dyadic relations within the triadic

Jon, I think i’m beginning to catch on to what you’re driving at, so I’ll insert my responses below. I hope this doesn’t make you any queasier, Gary R, as I have no desire to evoke that kind of feeling! Gary f. From: Jon Alan Schmidt [mailto:jonalanschm...@gmail.com] Sent: 16-Apr-17

RE: [PEIRCE-L] Dyadic relations within the triadic

<peirce-l@list.iupui.edu> Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Dyadic relations within the triadic John C, List, Would you explain this remark: "The only time [the] sign (I am assuming you mean representamen) might determine the objects is when it is purely iconic. I take it that this is a trivial ca

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Dyadic relations within the triadic

Gary R., List: GR: But surely, the most obvious thing, as Gary F reminds us, is that Peirce always says that the Object determines the Sign for the Interpretant ... Yes, and this is what makes CP 2.235-238 so incongruous to me. That passage requires the Third Correlate (Interpretant) to

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Dyadic relations within the triadic

Gary F., List: When I say that one aspect of semeiosis "determines" another, what I mean--because it is what I take Peirce to mean--is that the mode of the first *constrains *the mode of the second. The Sign determines the Sign-Object relation such that if the Sign in itself is a possibility,

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Dyadic relations within the triadic

f. > > > > *From:* Jon Alan Schmidt [mailto:jonalanschm...@gmail.com > <jonalanschm...@gmail.com>] > *Sent:* 16-Apr-17 15:34 > *To:* Gary Fuhrman <g...@gnusystems.ca> > *Cc:* Peirce-L <peirce-l@list.iupui.edu> > *Subject:* Re: [PEIRCE-L] Dyadic relatio

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Dyadic relations within the triadic

lto:jonalanschm...@gmail.com] > *Sent:* 16-Apr-17 15:34 > *To:* Gary Fuhrman <g...@gnusystems.ca> > *Cc:* Peirce-L <peirce-l@list.iupui.edu> > *Subject:* Re: [PEIRCE-L] Dyadic relations within the triadic > > > > Gary F., List: > > > > As I see it, #11 is

RE: [PEIRCE-L] Dyadic relations within the triadic

, John From: g...@gnusystems.ca [mailto:g...@gnusystems.ca] Sent: Sunday, 16 April 2017 2:07 PM To: 'Peirce-L' <peirce-l@list.iupui.edu> Subject: RE: [PEIRCE-L] Dyadic relations within the triadic Jon, briefly, I don’t see that “the Sign determines the Sign-Object relation,” and I don’t see

RE: [PEIRCE-L] Dyadic relations within the triadic

show that I’m wrong by citing a Peirce text. Gary f. From: Jon Alan Schmidt [mailto:jonalanschm...@gmail.com] Sent: 16-Apr-17 15:34 To: Gary Fuhrman <g...@gnusystems.ca> Cc: Peirce-L <peirce-l@list.iupui.edu> Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Dyadic relations within the triadic G

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Dyadic relations within the triadic

Gary F., List: As I see it, #11 is the main sticking point ... GF: My contrary claim is that the order in which trichotomies are listed has nothing to do with the order of determination that applies to correlates, and if Peirce had chosen to list them in the order I did, this would make

[PEIRCE-L] Dyadic relations within the triadic

-L <peirce-l@list.iupui.edu <mailto:peirce-l@list.iupui.edu> > Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Dyadic relations within the triadic Gary F., List: GF: The reason for the 1908 ordering you quote seems clear enough because it is an order of successive determination, but it has no

RE: [PEIRCE-L] Dyadic relations within the triadic

[mailto:jonalanschm...@gmail.com] Sent: 15-Apr-17 18:54 To: Gary Fuhrman <g...@gnusystems.ca> Cc: Peirce-L <peirce-l@list.iupui.edu> Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Dyadic relations within the triadic Gary F., List: GF: The reason for the 1908 ordering you quote seems clear enough because it

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Dyadic relations within the triadic

ence--or something like that. > > > --Jeff > > > Jeffrey Downard > Associate Professor > Department of Philosophy > Northern Arizona University > (o) 928 523-8354 <(928)%20523-8354> > > > ---------- > *From:* Gary Richmond <gary.rich

Aw: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Dyadic relations within the triadic

of Philosophy Northern Arizona University (o) 928 523-8354   From: Gary Richmond <gary.richm...@gmail.com> Sent: Saturday, April 15, 2017 9:38 AM To: Peirce-L Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Dyadic relations within the triadic   Gary F, Jon S, List,   Gary F wrote:    The upshot of this

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Dyadic relations within the triadic

Gary F., List: GF: The reason for the 1908 ordering you quote seems clear enough because it is an order of successive determination, but it has no relation to any ordering of trichotomies. Now you lost me. Each of the correlates in that 1908 passage is divided by a trichotomy, so the order of

Aw: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Dyadic relations within the triadic

: Gary Richmond <gary.richm...@gmail.com> Sent: Saturday, April 15, 2017 9:38 AM To: Peirce-L Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Dyadic relations within the triadic   Gary F, Jon S, List,   Gary F wrote:    The upshot of this, as far as I can see, is that Firstness (possibility) cannot determine Se

RE: [PEIRCE-L] Dyadic relations within the triadic

gt; Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Dyadic relations within the triadic Gary F, Gary R, Jon S, List, All agree that "the upshot of this, as far as I can see, is that Firstness (possibility) cannot determine Secondness (actuality) or Thirdness (law), and Secondness cannot determine T

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Dyadic relations within the triadic

tegories. Or something like that. Gary f. From: Jon Alan Schmidt [mailto:jonalanschm...@gmail.com<mailto:jonalanschm...@gmail.com>] Sent: 15-Apr-17 10:46 Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Dyadic relations within the triadic Gary F., List: CSP: The First Correlate is that one of the three which is r

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Dyadic relations within the triadic

generate the tenfold classification of > signs which Peirce develops later in NDTR.) What I can’t guess is how or > why you are assigning an *order* to those trichotomies (or saying that > Peirce implies some such order in 235-6). > > > > Gary f. > > > > *From:* Jon

RE: [PEIRCE-L] Dyadic relations within the triadic

(or saying that Peirce implies some such order in 235-6). Gary f. From: Jon Alan Schmidt [mailto:jonalanschm...@gmail.com] Sent: 15-Apr-17 14:06 Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Dyadic relations within the triadic Garys, List: I agree with that much, as well. The issue arises when we apply

RE: [PEIRCE-L] Dyadic relations within the triadic

, so your usage of the term in your statement diverges from Peirce’s usage in a categorial context. Gary f. From: CLARK GOBLE [mailto:cl...@lextek.com] Sent: 15-Apr-17 13:49 To: Peirce-L <PEIRCE-L@list.iupui.edu> Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Dyadic relations within the triadic On

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Dyadic relations within the triadic

> On Apr 15, 2017, at 10:28 AM, g...@gnusystems.ca wrote: > > The upshot of this, as far as I can see, is that Firstness (possibility) > cannot determine Secondness (actuality) or Thirdness (law), and Secondness > cannot determine Thirdness: determination can only run in the other >

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Dyadic relations within the triadic

gt; > > > Either I’m missing something, or you are confusing Firstness with being > First Correlate in a triadic relation, and the same with the other > categories. Or something like that. > > > > Gary f. > > > > *From:* Jon Alan Schmidt [mailto:jonalanschm...

RE: [PEIRCE-L] Dyadic relations within the triadic

] Dyadic relations within the triadic Gary F., List: CSP: The First Correlate is that one of the three which is regarded as of the simplest nature, being a mere possibility if any one of the three is of that nature, and not being a law unless all three are of that nature. The Third

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Dyadic relations within the triadic

Gary F., List: CSP: The First Correlate is that one of the three which is regarded as of the simplest nature, being a mere possibility if any one of the three is of that nature, and not being a law unless all three are of that nature. The Third Correlate is that one of the three which is

RE: [PEIRCE-L] Dyadic relations within the triadic

Jon S, you wrote: “in subsequently rereading CP 2.235-236, I noticed that it implied the order of determination of the three correlates to be Third, Second, First; i.e., Interpretant, Object, Sign.” But I don’t see how these two paragraphs imply anything at all about order of determination.

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Dyadic relations within the triadic

Gary F., List: Jappy's first chapter purports to spell out Peirce's 1903 theory of signs without any reference to his later writings, and it straightforwardly labels the three trichotomies as S, S-O, and S-I. From thumbing through the whole book, it looks like it does not say anything about

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Dyadic relations within the triadic

Gary F., List: Earlier in NDTR, Peirce stated that the third division of a Sign is "according as its Interpretant represents it as a sign of possibility, or as a sign of fact, or a sign of reason" (CP 2.243, EP 2:291). This initially sounds to me like the (dyadic) relation between the Sign and

RE: [PEIRCE-L] Dyadic relations within the triadic

Richmond [mailto:gary.richm...@gmail.com] Sent: 14-Apr-17 14:50 To: Peirce-L <peirce-l@list.iupui.edu> Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Dyadic relations within the triadic Jon S, Gary F, List, Jon, this is most interesting and brings up several topics, some of which, for example, those re

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Dyadic relations within the triadic

Jon S, Gary F, List, Jon, this is most interesting and brings up several topics, some of which, for example, those relating to Jappy's diagram, I'll hold off discussing at least for now (although I have a number of questions regarding his approach and, indeed, with much of the literature

RE: [PEIRCE-L] Dyadic relations within the triadic

to choose among those options. As long as we know what we’re talking about … (more or less) … Gary f. From: Jon Alan Schmidt [mailto:jonalanschm...@gmail.com] Sent: 14-Apr-17 13:12 To: Gary Fuhrman <g...@gnusystems.ca> Cc: peirce-l@list.iupui.edu Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Dyadic rel

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Dyadic relations within the triadic

Gary F., List: This is very helpful, thank you for posting it. It is interesting that in NDTR, Peirce treated the three monadic correlate divisions and three dyadic relation divisions as each generating a different set of ten Sign classes. Tony Jappy has suggested that we should perhaps maintain

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Dyadic relations within the triadic

Gary F, List, Gary, this post is very helpful especially in the context of the new Subject heading you've given it. It appears to me that a great deal of effort went into your writing it including your finding the textual support you've offered. I will be studying it this weekend. For now

[PEIRCE-L] Dyadic relations within the triadic

Jon S, Gary R, list, Much as I admire the efforts of Jon S. to reconcile the Taborskian framework with the Peircean, and Jon A's efforts to express it all algebraically, I would rather go straight to Peirce's own text on the question Jon raised about the tenfold classification of signs. Since