Helmut, List: Composition is the *relation *between a car as a whole and its discrete parts, of which it is an *assemblage*--a car is (literally) *built up* of its individual parts. Again, that is not the case for the object and interpretant--the object is not *built up* of the immediate/dynamical objects, and the interpretant is not *built up* of the immediate/dynamical/final interpretants. Instead, we *analyze *the object to distinguish the dynamical/immediate objects as genuine/degenerate, and we *analyze* the interpretant to distinguish the final/dynamical/immediate interpretants as relatively genuine/reactional/qualitative.
In my view, composition is also *not *the relation between the universe as a whole and signs as its parts--in accordance with Peirce's late topical conception, the universe is not *built up* from individual signs, it is a vast semiosic continuum that *involves *individual signs, which we *prescind *from it. He is sometimes misquoted as saying that the universe *is *composed of signs, but what he *actually *states is that "all this universe is perfused with signs, if it is not composed exclusively of signs" (CP 5.448n, EP 2:394, 1906)--it is *either* perfused with signs *or *composed of signs. As I see it, these two alternatives align with continuous/holist/top-down vs. discrete/reductionist/bottom-up. Again, "rheme," "dicisign," and "argument" are not names for classifying sign-interpretant relations, they are names for classifying signs *according to* their sign-interpretant relations. A rheme is a *sign *whose relation with its (genuine/final) interpretant is a possible, a dicisign is a *sign *whose relation with its (genuine/final) interpretant is an existent, and an argument is a *sign *whose relation with its (genuine/final) interpretant is a necessitant. Regards, Jon On Mon, Nov 3, 2025 at 9:42 AM Helmut Raulien <[email protected]> wrote: > Jon, List, > > a car is composed of parts, but a car is not a relation. Rheme, dicent, > argument is not a classification of signs, that would be qualisign, > sinsign, legisign for the sign as prascinded correlate, and ten classes for > the real sign. I have run out of arguments now. > > Best, Helmut > 2. November 2025 um 21:50 > "Jon Alan Schmidt" <[email protected]> > *wrote:* > 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.
