Jon, List,
There are some terms, that are used differently in common speech and in scientific speech. Example: I said, a relation is a kind of composition, and you said, no, it is the other way around. What I meant is: An interactive relation is a kind of combination.Commonly, "Composition" means, that things are put together, like an assembly of a car. You said, no, it is not the assembly, but the relation of the assembly. "Assembly" perhaps is limited to technical parts, so maybe "combination" suits. "Relation" in common speech means, that elements have to do something with each other. But in mathematics, "bigger than" is a relation too. But I don´t have to do anything with somebody in China, whom I don´t know, and who is bigger than me. I would say, I don´t have a relation with him, but mathematically I have. Combination is a two-ways-interactive relation, determination is one way, and classification is not per se interactive. It is rather a matter of reflexion. So, the term "relation" is being used for completely different things.
Best, Helmut
I think, there is the S,O,I- triad, and the (S), (S-O), (S-I)- triad, that is used for the ten classes. Both are ttriads in categorial order.Then there is the O,S,I triad, which is in order of determination. This can be elaborated to the Od,Oi, S, Ii, Id, If- hexad, which also represents the determinarion order. I guess, it is used for 28 classes of determination, or signs in their order of determination. I suspect, that it is 28 classes of objects. Then there is the hexad S, Oi, Od, Ii, Id, If, which is the hexad in categorial order, derived from the S,O,I- triad, and was used to show the sign "beauty". I´d call the categorial order compositional, showing the composition of the sign, what it is like. Now we have composition and determination, what is left, is classification. I think, that would be the triad in interpretational or reflexive order, I,S,O, and a hexad for 28 classes of interpretants. I am just trying to see a kind of system in all this. Otherwise, the model is as complicated as the reality, or more, then it is not a model, but a repeating depiction.
Best, Helmut
3. November 2025 um 19:10
"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]> 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, Helmut2. 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, USAStructural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian
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.
