Jerry, list, "The molecular formula is an (103114-1) index of the sinsign, is it not?"
Yes. It is, but sinsign is not the only kinds of signs. As you know, there are in addition the qualisign and the legisign, and each is irreversibly triadic being associated with its object and interpretant, thus generating the 3x3 table of what I call "elementary" signs. The neologism, "elemetnary signs", is useful, I think, in distinguishing them from the 10 classes of signs they comprise which I call "composite signs", another neologism. I agree that these are my own terminologies that others may not find useful. In that case they will disappear into oblivion. The key idea that is introduced in my quark model of the Peircean sign referred to in my earlier posts is the Peircean selection rule stating that the numerical values of the sub-indexes, i, j, and k of a composite sign, denoted as S_i,j,k, must obey the inequality, i <- j <- k, where the symbol <- reads less than or equal to, or cannot be greater than. The theoretical rationale for the Peircean selection rule, I believe, resides in Peirces metaphysical categories of Firstness (1ns), Secondness (2ns), and Thirdness (3ns, to use Gary Fs notation) obeying the rule that 1ns is the prerequisite for 2ns and 1ns and 2ns are the prerequisite for 3ns. So, the 9 types of signs Peirce proposed obey two sets of triads -- (i) the sign triad, representamen, object, and interpretant, and (ii) the categorial triad, 1ns, 2ns, and 3ns, leading to the 3x3 table of 'elementary' signs. 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, 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 .
