[MD] Ham & swiss cheese

[Scott Roberts]

Ham,

Ham said:
I must confess ignorance of Peirce's theory.  But since you admit to the
existence of dyadic relations and say that relations do not have to be
triadic, I fail to see why you single this one out.

Scott:
Didn't you note at the end that I don't admit the existence of dyadic 
relations?

Ham said:
> The fact that there are two people involved does not
> change the fundamental epistemology.

Scott replied:
> Yes it does change. If you remove any one of the
> variables (the donor, the recipient, or the thing given)
> you do not have an act of giving. Similarly with meaning
> (which in S/O terms is two objects and one subject), remove
> any one of the three and it ceases to be an act of meaning.

Ham said:
I acknowledge a donor, a recipient, and a gift in the relationship of
"giving".  These are the three participants.  Relationships are infinitely
extendable by number.  Thus, if you were to make the book a presentation to,
say, a class of 40 people, there would be 42 participants, including
yourself and the book.  I don't see what that proves insofar as epistemology
is concerned.

Scott:
No, there is only one recipient: the class of 40 people. Or I could give 40 
books to 40 people, in which case there would be 40 cases of acts of giving. 
Or I could give a book to a library, in which case the recipient isn't a 
person at all.

Scott said:
> What I am saying is that, though the "aware" relation as
> given is syntactically valid, metaphysically, it isn't complete.
> That, instead, what is "really going on" is
> meaning(interpretant, representamen, referent).

Ham said:
Again, in S/O terms, the "thing" or referent being interpreted is the
observed object, while the interpreter is the subject.  Why do you need two
interpreters? Must you confirm the interpretation with a second opinion?
If that's the case, why not bring in a dozen or more interpreters for a
"collective consensus" of the meaning?

Scott:
The referent is not being interpreted. The representamen is being 
interpreted as the referent. There is one interpretant, one representamen, 
and one referent. I interpret the three letters c-a-t (the representamen) as 
the concept of a furry animal (the concept is the referent).

Ham said:
Also, could you define "representamen"?

Scott:
As I said: think "signifier". The physical sound, or formation of ink on 
paper of a word, for example. The referent is the concept that the physical 
formation signifies. Another representamen is a board with the word "London" 
and an arrow on it. The referent is the knowledge of the direction to 
London. If I see a cat, then the cat is a representamen, for whatever 
feelings and thoughts seeing that particular cat produces.

- Scott