List, Sung:
Thank you for repeating your personal philosophy. It is a source of curiosity to me. Unfortunately, your response simply adds many logical terms and propositions that are not directly related to the writings of CSP. Why do you feel at liberty to corrupt the original meanings of CSP writings (whatever we speculate about them) with the additional terms, propositions, conjectures and conclusions that are products of your personal world view?? Perhaps my message was not so clear to you, for whatever reason, but I seek to understand first the possible origins of the triadic triad as a set of exactly NINE terms, ordered in a specific manner to as include medads as terms in English language sentences such that logic arguments follow? It is the pattern of this set of categories of meaning that concerns me. To place this is technical terms, the molecular formula of any chemical molecule is composed from a strings of proper names, each represented by CSP as "blanks" within a sentence, generating his logical notion of a medad. The molecular formula is an index of the sinsign, is it not? Please be so kind as to address the questions I raised? Cheers Jerry On Oct 31, 2014, at 6:26 PM, Sungchul Ji wrote: > Jerry wrote: > > "If not, what would be a more appropriate term for this (103114-1) > ORGANIZED group of terms?" > > (1) It is necessary to distinguish the 9 TYPES of signs in the 3x3 table > and the 10 CLASSES of signs built on them constrained by what I call the > "Piercean selection rule" explained below. > (2) I suggested in the attached table that the 9 types of signs be > referred to "elementary signs" and the 10 classes of signs, each composed > of three of these elementary signs, as the "composite signs". > (3) Composite signs can be represented systematically as S_ijk, the > subindex i referring to the interpretant, j to the object and k to the > representamen (see the table attached). > (4) The Peircean selection rule simply states that the subindex i cannot > be greater than j which in turn cannot be greater than k. > (5) According to the 10 classes of signs, dicisign is not a triadic (or > composite) sign but one of the 9 types of elementary signs that refer to > the relation between representamen and interpretant in the mode of > Secondness. > (6) Peirce seems to give an alternative definition of "dicisign" as > extensively quoted in NP as a composite sign having both iconic and > indexical characters, in violation of his own selection rule embodied int > he triadic triad table. > > With all the best. > > Sung > __________________________________________________ > Sungchul Ji, Ph.D. > Associate Professor of Pharmacology and Toxicology > Department of Pharmacology and Toxicology > Ernest Mario School of Pharmacy > Rutgers University > Piscataway, N.J. 08855 > 732-445-4701 > > www.conformon.net > > > > >> List: >> >> A factual question concerning CSP writings, relative to Gary's and Sung's >> recent assertions and FS assertions wrt to the meanings of rhetorical >> logic. Why are rhetorical terms grouped together, anyway? >> >> I recall a passage that states the second and third rows of the triadic >> triad are both aspects of the representamen of objects. >> Can anyone cite the text? >> >> This nine terms are presented, by CSP, in a fixed pattern and related by >> fixed relations, thus none of them alone can be considered as an >> independent term in the sense of a dictionary definition. >> >> Is not the basic issue, why did CSP opt (e.g., in the grammatical sense of >> the mood of a verb ) to present this pattern? >> >> BTW, all nine terms of the triadic triad, as written as (philosophical) >> artifacts, are interpretants, are they not? >> > <Ten_classes_of_signs_12232012.docx> > ----------------------------- > 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] > . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] > with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at > http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm . > > > >
----------------------------- 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] . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
