This is a salient post. I think icon, index, symbol is the most useful of the nominated survivors though my own adaptation reality ethics aesthetics suits me as a sort of every-person triad for use in a daily discipline of conscious thinking which is what I have been working to put forward. I think "triadic thinking" is also a perfectly good term to set against binary thinking.
amazon.com/author/stephenrose On Thu, Feb 9, 2017 at 9:23 PM, John F Sowa <s...@bestweb.net> wrote: > On 2/8/2017 12:31 PM, Jerry LR Chandler wrote: > >> The three triads of CSP, >> qualisign, sinsign, legisign; >> icon, index, symbol; >> rhema, dicisign, argument, >> can be, in my opinion, a “recipe” for realism; that is, the logical >> association of antecedent observations (Qualisigns with logical >> consequences (legisigns)) What I find exceedingly curious about the >> (strange) words of this table is that only the last word, “argument” is >> used in logic. The other eight words are merely dictionary words. >> Clearly, some similarity with 21 st Century AI exists in these three >> 19th Century triads. >> > > I have discussed, written about, and lectured on Peirce's semiotic > to various audiences -- mostly in AI and cognitive science. His > terminology is indeed a deterrent for many people. > > One wonders why CSP’s three triads have not been adopted. >> > > The words qualisign, sinsign, legisign, rhema, and dicisign have > no chance of being accepted. Even Peirce scholars use them only > when discussing Peirce's writings. > > The triad of icon, index, and symbol is the most widely recognized, > cited, and used -- partly because the words are more common. Peirce's > terms 'type' and 'token' are widely used even by people who have no > idea where they came from. And the words 'predicate' and 'proposition' > are common in logic. > > For teaching Peirce's semiotic, I therefore recommend that those > five words should be replaced with terms that CSP himself used: > > mark, token, type; > icon, index, symbol; > predicate, proposition, argument. > > See Figure 2, page 5 of "Signs and reality": > http://www.jfsowa.com/pubs/signs.pdf > > For example, consider an index of species. >> >> Is it real? >> Or, ideal? >> > > For both a nominalist and a realist, an index is something > observable: a pointing finger, a pronoun in speech or writing, > or a physical occurrence of some kind. > > But a species is a type, which is determined by some law > of nature. A realist would say that the law is real. > But a nominalist would say that a law is merely a pattern > of words that summarize some observational data. > > In short, both nominalists and realists could use the nine > terms above in practical applications. They would often > reach the same conclusions, but they would disagree about > the existence of referents for the words in the third column. > > John > > > ----------------------------- > 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 .
