Helmut, List: All I can tell you is that your terminology continues to be inconsistent with Peirce's, suggesting an ongoing misunderstanding of the associated concepts.
HR: As far as I have understood, a relation is a kind of composition, and a -tomy is a kind of classification. Composition is a kind of (triadic) relation, not the other way around; and as I said before, dichotomies and trichotomies are twofold and threefold divisions, respectively. HR: Rheme, dicent, argument, for example, is a classification, it is *kinds* (not parts) of the genuine interpretant-sign-relation, which are prescinded. Rheme/dicent/argument is a classification of *signs*, which is *according to* the nature of the sign's relation with its genuine (final) interpretant; it is *not *a classification of that relation *itself*. HR: This "either-or" does not apply to the two objects, nor to the three interpretants. ... So it is not a classification, but a composition. The object is not *composed* of the dynamical and immediate objects, and the interpretant is not *composed* of the final, dynamical, and immediate interpretants. HR: I don´t know, if it is ok to say, that a hexad is irreducible, it is an irreducible triad between a monad, an irreducible dyad, and an irreducible triad. Again, there is no such thing as an irreducible *hexad*; and the irreducible *triad* is the relation whose three correlates are the sign itself, its genuine (dynamical) object, and its genuine (final) interpretant. Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt / twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt On Sun, Nov 2, 2025, 12:31 PM Helmut Raulien <[email protected]> wrote: > Jon, List, > > The term "division" is too ambiguous for me. You can call the elements of > a relation so, too. As far as I have understood, a relation is a kind of > composition, and a ...tomy is a kind of classification. Rheme, dicent, > argument, for example, is a classification, it is kinds (not parts) of > the genuine interpretant-sign-relation, which are prescinded. In reality it > is a dekatomy: Ten classes of signs, a classification, either-or. This > "either-or" does not apply to the two objects, nor to the three > interpretants. They appear together. The division between them is only in > the mind of the analyst, not in reality. So it is not a classification, but > a composition. The DO and the IO have a relation with each other, the IO is > the part of the sign, that enables the sign to have a relation with the DO. > I don´t know, if itis ok. to say, that a hexad is irreducible, it is an > irreducible triad between a monad, an irreducible dyad, and an irreducible > triad. The number of correlates is due to depth of analysis: 1. 3. 6, 10, > 15, 21, 28, and so on. The distance between two numbers is the distance > between the two numbers before plus one. > > Best, Helmut >
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ► PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to [email protected] . ► <a href="mailto:[email protected]";>UNSUBSCRIBE FROM PEIRCE-L</a> . But, if your subscribed email account is not your default email account, then go to https://list.iu.edu/sympa/signoff/peirce-l . ► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary Richmond; and co-managed by him and Ben Udell.
