Helmut, lists,
Aristotle's 10 categories in "Categories" include _/poiein/_ (to do, to
make) and _/paschein/_ (to suffer, to undergo), such as 'to cauterize'
and 'to be cauterized'. He also discusses _/energeia/_ (activity) and
_/entelechia/_, both of which are sometimes translated as 'actuali
Hi!!
Agent, Patient, and Effect are a triadic affair, call it relation, call it what you want, but they are triadic. If there is no effect, there was no activity (no Agens). If there was nothing to be the subject, there was no patiens. If there was no effect, there were neither both of them. If t
Hi Ben, Lists,
I am drawing on the discussion of formally ordered dyadic relations in "On the
Logic of Mathematics; an attempt to develop my categories from within."
CP 1.468. Closely connected with this distinction is another; namely,
materially ordered dyads are divisible into those in which
Howard,
Your first parapraph here is a pretty concise statement of the conceptual
framework I’ve been referring to. It conflates so many different dichotomies
into one that it’s no wonder they all become “problems” for you. But if you’re
asking me to use that very conceptual framework to exp
Jeff D., lists,
Where does Peirce discuss agent and patient as a dyadic relation? I'm
willing to believe that he does so. I recall (perhaps inaccurately) that
he called the sign's object the _/agent/_ and the sign itself the
_/patient/_, but didn't call the interpretant the _/act/_.
- Best,
Supplement: Patient and agent for me are not a dyad, but parts of a triad, consisting of: Patiens, Agens, Effect. Neither of these three is thinkable or senseful with one of them missing.
Dear Stan, Peirceans,
Dyadicity or triadicity? My hypothesis about dyadicity is, that there are t
Lists,
When it comes to Peirce's explanation the distinction between subject and
object, I would think that we might start with his account of the ordered
dyadic relation between patient and agent. From these humble beginnings, we
are able to build systems of richer relations--such as those in
Dear Howard, iists -
Did I not already answer this? (below)
I do not think Peircean semiotics avoids that question.
I think it avoids the subject-object terminology in order not to import
anthropocentric conceptions from German idealism.
Best
F
Den 04/05/2015 kl. 15.46 skrev Howard Pattee
ma
At 05:46 PM 5/5/2015, Gary Fuhrman wrote:
It's quite a stretch to read
[the Peirce quote] as an assertion that "the subject-object
relation" is "obscure and mysterious," and it has nothing
to do with the "mind-matter problem" which is the legacy of
Cartesian dualism.
What is the stretch? Your st
