Jerry, List,
I have seen tables like the one you have described, and ones, in which "rows" and "columns" are interchanged. One dimension is classificatorial (either-or), and the other is compositional (three together make a sign triad). Both dimensions are categorial, as I think, but some say, the compositional direction is not categorial, but only according to order "a first, a second, a third" (like in "sign, object, interpretant"). You wrote, that at some place the order "icon, index, symbol" has been changed to "index, icon, symbol", and wonder, where. I can only imagine, that such a change of order appears in one of the hexadic sign tables. There are different ways of orderings in different hexadic sign tables, which is very confusing, I think. The order "index, icon, symbol" would apply to the determinational order, which is "object- sign- interpretant", and so to a determinational hexadic table, I think. I just remember all this somehow, but don´t know where to find it.
Best, Helmut
List:
What forms of logicality are being addressed in these sentences?
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ► 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] . ► UNSUBSCRIBE FROM PEIRCE-L . 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.
On May 8, 2026, at 7:14 PM, Helmut Raulien <[email protected]> wrote:
"Belief" is a term for not a logical concept, but for a hardened state of mind. Knowledge is due to deduction. To estimate a probability is due to induction, and to take something for possible is due to abduction. But to believe in something doesn´t have a logical background, only its fixation can be analysed to four kinds. "I know, that not" is a knowledge, "I don´t know, that" too. "It is possible, that not" is a possibility, "It is not possible, that" is not a possibility anymore. "It is probable, that not" and "It is not probable, that" are both probabilities. "I believe, that not" is a belief, but "I don´t believe, that" is not a belief anymore. So, belief logically works like possibility, and knowledge like probability.
Let’s discuss.
In CSP's syntactical table (matrix of classes of terms),
Qualisign Sinsign, Legisign,
aligns signs with precisely chosen “word forming elements” that charge the reader with associating the meanings of signs with multiple possible forms of ordinations of meanings.
In the second row of this syntax-generating table (matrix),
Icon, Index, Symbol,
CSP aligns a set of cognitive terms that associate multiple concomitant terms that potentially align the signs with forms of logicality.
In the third row of the table, CSP aligns three terms
Rhema, Dicisign, Argument
thereby generating an alignment of a 3x3 matrix of syntactical words which he uses to associate cognitively the logicality of sentences, that is, an argument (a determinative proposition that is valid)
It is critical to note that the de novo genesis of a proposition from specific predecessor terms is the task aligned with the term _argument_ .
The first column of the matrix structural order aligns the meanings of qualisigns, icon, and rhema as necessary illative terms that point to a specific identity.
The second column of the matrix structural order aligns the meanings of terms sinsign, index (numbers, ordering?) and dicisign (ordination?) into a specific form of transitivity that are necessary to form an argument that potentially specifies the legisign.
This line of reasoning is grounded on the presumption of a consistent linguistic (syntactical, indexical, grammatical) interpretation of scientific evidence without any direct reference to mathematical operations or mathematical structures such as “linear algebra” or “isomorphisms”.
It appears CSP is using the term “legisign” as an alternative to stating that a meaningful name of identity is assigned to the sinsign.
Open question:
The question is what motivates the change in order of the second row
from “icon, index, symbol”
to “index, icon, symbol”?
What would be the cause such that the logicality of all specific patterns of syntactical and grammatical inference among terms of the argument be changed?
Would it be revised because of an insufficient grammatical structure to support a meaningful (valid) assertion under any situation or semiotic circumstance?
Cheers
Jerry
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ► 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] . ► UNSUBSCRIBE FROM PEIRCE-L . 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.
