Edwina, List: Okay--in that case, please disregard the question at the end of my last post.
Thanks, Jon On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 3:13 PM, Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca> wrote: > Jon, list: > You'll find his outline of genuine and degenerate categories in various > places. See 5.66 and on, where he outlines the genuine and degenerate forms > of Secondness and Thirdness. It gets VERY complicated > > For example, 5.73 ..he writes: 'Of these three genera of representamens, > the *Icon* is the qualitatively degenerate, the *Index* the Reactionally > degenerate while the *Symbol* is the relatively genuine genus'. > > In 2.283 he also talks about genuine and degenerate modes. And 8.331 - > also talks about genuine and degenerate... > > So- for example, the R-O relation that acts as an *Icon* MIGHT be defined > as in a categorical mode of 3-1; the Indexical is in a categorical mode of > 3-2 and the Symbol is 3-3. But the Indexical could also be 2-2 or 2-1. And > you can do the same elsewhere...where the Representamen can be in any one > of the three categories and also, presumably, in a genuine and degenerate > mode. Same with the relation between the Representamen and the Dynamical > Interpretant - Peirce writes that it could be 'active or passive Secondness > [2-2 or 2-1]...but..couldn't it also be in a mode of Firstness? > > So- these combinations bring the ten classes up to many more. I admit I > haven't explored these complexities because the possibilities are enormous. > There ARE constraints within the categories and within the triad > [O-R-I]...but....the complexities are beyond me. > > Edwina > > ----- Original Message ----- > *From:* Jon Alan Schmidt <jonalanschm...@gmail.com> > *To:* Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca> > *Cc:* peirce-l@list.iupui.edu > *Sent:* Wednesday, October 19, 2016 3:39 PM > *Subject:* Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Universes and Categories (was Peirce's > Cosmology) > > Edwina, List: > > ET: As i said repeatedly, the categories are not the same as the > universes and the universes are therefore not a 'mature' or 'better' > version of the categories. > > > Agreed; although again, I think that it is an open question whether Peirce > was right to *change *his theoretical framework from phenomenological > Categories to ontological Universes. > > ET: I consider that the Relations [and there are not just four] to be > predicates ... > > > As should have been clear from my earlier post, the four relations that I > have in mind are S-Od, S-Id, S-If, and S-Od-If; i.e., the last four of the > ten 1908 trichotomies. In that arrangement, Peirce seems to have moved > away from treating S-Oi and S-Ii as distinct relations, presumably because > Oi and Ii are "immediate"; i.e., internal to S. I am inclined to agree > with you that relations are predicates, rather than subjects, and thus > should be divided by Categories, rather than Universes. If this is > correct, it obviously complicates--or perhaps renders impossible--Peirce's > late and unrealized project of combining the six correlate trichotomies > that are divided by Universe with the four relation trichotomies that are > divided by Category in order to determine 66 sign classes. > > ET: ... SIX categorical Relations: 1-1, 2-2, 2-1; 3-3, 3-2, 3-1. > > > I should probably know this by now, but would you mind explaining briefly > where these relations occur within the three trichotomies and ten sign > classes? > > Thanks, > > Jon > > On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 1:59 PM, Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca> > wrote: > >> Jon, list: Exactly. As i said repeatedly, the categories are not the same >> as the universes and the universes are therefore not a 'mature' or 'better' >> version of the categories. >> >> I don't see the relevance or superiority of the 'three universes' in >> explaining the dynamics of semiosis. >> >> I disagree that the sign/representamen is a subject. It's an integral >> component of the triadic Sign [O-R-I] and has no individual agential >> capacity in itself, as it would if it were a subject. It's a process of >> mediation and transformation and requires the subject-agenda of an Object >> Relation. >> >> I consider that the Relations [and there are not 'just four] to be >> predicates and morphological functional within the three categories or >> rather, SIX categorical Relations: 1-1, 2-2, 2-1; 3-3, 3-2, 3-1. >> >> Edwina >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> *From:* Jon Alan Schmidt <jonalanschm...@gmail.com> >> *To:* peirce-l@list.iupui.edu >> *Sent:* Wednesday, October 19, 2016 2:28 PM >> *Subject:* [PEIRCE-L] Re: Universes and Categories (was Peirce's >> Cosmology) >> >> List: >> >> I was digging through my burgeoning collection of Peircean secondary >> literature this morning and came across Gary Richmond's PowerPoint >> presentation on "Trikonic" (http://www.iupui.edu/~arisbe/ >> menu/library/aboutcsp/richmond/trikonicb.ppt). It helpfully summarizes >> various characterizations of the three Categories/Universes. >> >> - Basic Categories: unit, correlate, medium. >> - Universes of Experience: ideas, brute events, habits. >> - Universal Categories: possibility, actuality, necessity. >> - Existential Categories: feeling, action-reaction, thought. >> - Logical Categories: vague, specific, general; or may be, actually >> is, must be. >> - Valencies: monad, dyad, triad. >> >> I also found two papers by Tony Jappy that, upon re-reading them, I found >> to be relevant to this topic--"Speculative Rhetoric, Methodeutic and >> Peirce’s Hexadic Sign-Systems" (2014) and especially "The Evolving >> Theoretical Framework of Peirce's Classification Systems" (2016), both of >> which are available online at https://univ-perp.academia.edu >> /TonyJappy/Papers. His book, *Peirce’s Twenty-Eight Classes of Signs >> and the Philosophy of Representation*, is coming out in December ( >> http://www.bloomsbury.com/us/peirces-twenty-eight-classes-o >> f-signs-and-the-philosophy-of-representation-9781474264839/); >> unfortunately, it looks like the price will be quite steep ($128 list). >> Jappy's hypothesis is that Peirce fundamentally changed his theoretical >> framework for sign classification--from phenomenological Categories to >> ontological Universes--during the time period between 1903 (three >> trichotomies, 10 sign classes) and 1908 (six or ten trichotomies, 28 or 66 >> sign classes). From the conclusion of the second paper ... >> >> TJ: The three categories, which, irrespective of their origin, had >> accompanied all his work in the classification of signs from the earliest >> period until approximately 1904, was superseded in 1908 by a broad >> ontological vision embracing three universes, receptacles with respect to >> which the sign and its correlates could be referred in the course of the >> classification of a sign. The logical principles supporting this later >> typological approach to signs, the fruit of an evolution in Peirce’s >> conception of the object and of the rapid theoretical development that his >> conception of sign-action experienced in those years between 1904 and 1906, >> are, therefore, radically different from those of the earlier approach, and >> it is doubtful that the two will ever be combined in a satisfactory manner >> in the quest for the sixty-six classes that Peirce hoped to identify. >> >> >> In the body of the same paper, Jappy twice quotes from "Prolegomena to >> an Apology for Pragmaticism" to explain the difference between Universes >> and Categories in this context. >> >> TJ: 1906 was the year, finally, in which Peirce explicitly introduced a >> fundamental distinction between categories and universes ... making >> explicit the universes to which the subjects mentioned in the extract >> (RL463 26–28) quoted earlier belonged: >> >> CSP: Oh, I overhear what you are saying, O Reader: that a Universe and a >> Category are not at all the same thing; a Universe being a receptacle or >> class of Subjects, and a Category being a mode of Predication, or class of >> Predicates. I never said they were the same thing; but whether you describe >> the two correctly is a question for careful study. (CP 4.545, 1906) >> >> >> TJ: In short, the passage suggests that Peirce is turning his back on >> the logico-phenomenological framework within which he had established his >> theory of signs since the mid-1860s, and that he is evolving towards an >> ontological approach to classification, anticipating in this field, too, >> the definitions advanced in the 23 December 1908 letter ... >> >> >> TJ: ... The theoretical framework within which Peirce is now working is >> ontological in the widest sense, involving the three universes defined >> above, three universes which are entirely different from the >> phenomenological categories of 1903-1904. A universe, says Peirce, is not >> the same as a category: "Let us begin with the question of Universes. It is >> rather a question of an advisable point of view than of the truth of a >> doctrine. A logical universe is, no doubt, a collection of logical >> subjects, but not necessarily of metaphysical Subjects, or ‘substances’; >> for it may be composed of characters, of elementary facts, etc." (CP 4.546, >> 1906). In this way, the correlates involved in semiosis figure ... as >> subjects susceptible of belonging to one or other of these universes ... >> the correlates thus described are not subdivided in any way by Firstness, >> Secondness or Thirdness but are subjects or members of a given universe: >> the dynamic object is one subject, the sign is another, etc. >> >> >> Unfortunately, Jappy confines his analysis to the six semeiotic >> correlates--Dynamic/Immediate Object, Sign, Immediate/Dynamic/Final >> Interpretants--and does not address the four semeiotic relations, except to >> note how Peirce described them in a 1904 letter to Lady Welby (CP >> 8.327-341), when he was still employing Categories rather than Universes. >> So I guess the questions that I posed earlier today must be preceded by >> this one--are relations in general, and semeiotic relations in particular, >> more properly treated as Subjects in Universes or as Predicates in >> Categories? If the latter, then that may explain why Peirce never managed >> to arrange all ten trichotomies into a definitive order of determination to >> establish the 66 sign classes, and why Jappy is skeptical that this can >> even be done. >> >> 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 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 .
