Aw: RE: RE: [PEIRCE-L] RE: signs, correlates, and triadic relations

[Helmut Raulien]

 

 

Supplement: I just have looked into Stans papers, and I think, I wrote something wrong in the mice-example. The highest level in subsumptive (eg. classification) hierarchy is the observer level, that should be the individual level. Or is it the biologist, who is exploring mice? I dont know. But, if the highest and last level was the individual level, then there could not be more than ten sign-classes.

Gary f, list,

Thank you, Gary F., and I should not so quickly have asked this silly question. I understand it like this: Quali-, sin,- legisign is the first level of classification, then in the second level there are six, and ten in the third level. The third level (the ten classes) is the level about the class of individual signs, or just signs. Saying "Qualisign", is adressing one of these ten classes, saying "Sinsign" is adressing three, and "Legisign" adresses six. "Indexical sinsign" adresses two, and  "symbolic legisign" three. But, whatever one says or adresses, it is all about triadic signs, so where is degeneracy? So, what I do not see at the moment, in which way can the term "degenerate" apply in a classification- i.e. subsumption- hierarchy? In a composition hierarchy I see it: immediate object, immediate and dynamical interpretant may be seen as degenerate. Representamen and object may be seen as degenerate forms of the sign, and the interpretant as genuine- but really genuine only the final one. In classification I can see degeneracy only in involvement, eg. a legisign involves a qualisign, a symbol involves an index and an icon, an argument involves a (or more) dicent/s and rheme/s, and so on. But this consideration is leaving the subsumption/classification hierarchy and is regarding a composition hierarchy:  A sign can be composed of subsigns. What I find a bit confusing: In other subsumtion hierarchies, the levels are written in the plural: Vertebrae, mammals, mice, desert jumping mice, individuals of desert jumping mice. But  eg. "Qualisign" is written in the singular. BTW.: I think, the next mice levels would be: subjective societies of idjm, subjective worlds of idjm. Analogously I would guess, that the next levels of sign classification (the fourth level has 15 classes, and so on, up to 66 classes) is about the individual sign´s subjective environment (the Uexküll-"Umwelt"- but can a sign be regarded like an organism?).

Best,

Helmut

 07. Dezember 2015 um 01:43 Uhr
g...@gnusystems.ca
 

Helmut, you ask,

 

Have I understood correctly:

--Embodiment means, that it is a complete triadic sign, eg.:

(1), qualisign, is not embodied, (1.1), iconic qualisign, is not completely embodied either, but (1.1.1), rhematic iconic qualisign, is embodied?

 

No, that can’t be it, because any qualisign has to be rhematic and iconic.

Since its mode of being is that of a logical possibility, a qualisign has to be embodied in something actual or existing (perhaps a sinsign) in order to act as a sign. Just as the quality of redness has to be embodied in something red in order to be perceived as red. That’s my guess.

 

--Degenerate is everything that is not all thirdness, so the only sign that is not degenerate at all, is the argument?

 

I think it’s possible that the argument, being also symbol and legisign, could be regarded as fully genuine so that all other sign types would be considered more or less degenerate. But I don’t know of anyplace where Peirce says exactly that, and I don’t see him comparing sign types across trichotomies. — However we apply it, we have to base Peirce’s concept of degeneracy on the conic section (see EP2:545 if you have it). A straight line is a degenerate form of the parabola, and so degenerate as a conic section; but a straight line considered as a moving point (for instance) is not degenerate. Likewise, Firstness is not degenerate in itself, nor is Secondness. But considered as a triadic relation, which can be quite complex, something as simple as a mere likeness of two correlates is degenerate, compared to, say, the relation between a symbol, its object, and its interpretant.

 

Gary f.

 

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 peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu 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 peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu 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 peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To 
UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the 
line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at 
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .