Gary F., List: GF: And maybe compare it with Vinicius Romanini’s “solenoid of semiosis,” http://www.minutesemeiotic.org/?p=30. which is a somewhat different attempt at a “minute” classification of sign types.
JS: I would argue that it is a very different attempt. Romanini postulates an eleventh trichotomy that Peirce never recognized (S-Od-Id), and puts all of them in a completely different sequence. GF: I’ve struggled with Vinicius’ presentation, mostly I think for terminological reasons, but haven’t reached the point yet where I feel I understand it well enough to criticize it. An alternative visualization that I have personally found more comprehensible is Priscila Borges's "Signtree Model" ( http://rd.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-642-15223-8_12). I had forgotten about it, but just came across it again. It does not incorporate the notion of recursion that you find appealing, but it strikes me as much more consistent with Peirce's own efforts on this front. It may not be coincidental that her proposed sequence of the ten trichotomies matches the one that I most recently proposed (Od => Oi => S => S-Od => Ii => Id => S-Id => If => S-If => Od-S-If), although she sticks to the traditional divisions of S-Id as Suggestive/Imperative/Indicative and S-If as Rheme/Dicent/Argument. Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
----------------------------- 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 .
