List,JAS, JAS wrote, referring to Peirce, “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.”
---------------------------- I disagree with JAS’s transformation of what I understand as a Both-And sentence, into an Either-Or sentence. My reading of Peirce’s statement is that he considered that the universe is, as perfused with signs, that this means an understanding that the universe is fully ‘permeated with’ Signs and this means ‘composed of Signs’. And this sentence, therefore, to me, is not divided into two meanings akin to top down vs bottom up. My understanding of ‘top down’ is akin to the reasoning method of deduction, which does not generate a rule but instead, sets up the existential reality as ‘an application of a rule’ 2.620, the ‘domination of a habit’ 6.144 – with the Rule or Habit as an a priori law that holistically dominates.. My understanding of 'bottom up' – is first, that this is not a synonym for reductionist – since this method also does not generate knowledge or information but is instead, reductionist into the discrete mechanical particles of a system – a comparison to Induction, “which assumes that a whole collection, from which a number of instances have been taken at random, has all the common characters of those instances ‘. 2.525.. JAS leaves out a vital method of reasoning; namely abduction- which is the generation of a hypothesis starting from the facts. CP 7.219, 2.776, 5.144. This I would compare to the evolutionary method of ‘emergence’, as outlined, for example, in 1.413. That is, the habits or rules emerge, self-organized, from within the system itself. Edwina > On Nov 3, 2025, at 1:10 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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] > <mailto:[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] >> <mailto:[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 >> <http://www.linkedin.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt> / twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt >> <http://twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt> >> On Sun, Nov 2, 2025, 12:31 PM Helmut Raulien <[email protected] >> <mailto:[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.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ► 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.
