John, List:

JFS:  The third row (predicate, proposition, argument) is the *formal*
triad.  A predicate is a symbol of some relation.  A proposition is a
symbol that asserts the relation.


But the third row does not apply only to symbols.  What do we call an icon
or index that Peirce further classified as a rheme or dicent sign?

Regards,

Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman
www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt

On Fri, Feb 10, 2017 at 1:14 PM, John F Sowa <[email protected]> wrote:

> Edwina, Stephen, Jon A.S., Jon A., list
>
> ET
>
>> I don't find that it's the terms that slow down the use of Peirce in
>> analysis; I find that it's the concept of a triadic semiosis with that
>> vital mediation,  and the concept of the three modal categories. Both
>> seem very hard for people to grasp - and so, semiotics is reduced to the
>> simplistic binarism of Saussurian semiology
>>
>
> I agree that the concept of triadic semiosis is the critical issue.
> But expressing it in words that students have never heard, seen, or
> used, is a barrier to learning and adoption.
>
> SCR
>
>> Which makes it more imperative than ever that a way be found to make
>> the triadic mode more understandable and to say why it is infinitely
>> superior to binary thinking.
>>
>
> I've found that the best starting point is the dyadic type-token
> distinction.  That's widely known and accepted in linguistics and
> computer science -- even by people who have never heard of Peirce.
>
> And those people are always surprised when you tell them that
> token and type are the second and third terms of a triad.
> For the first term, Peirce used the words 'tone' and 'mark'.
>
> Of those two, tone is hard for people to generalize.  A pure tone
> is rare, even in music.  But mark is the obvious choice for images,
> and students can quickly generalize it to any sensation.
>
> You can start with Peirce's example of tokens of the type 'the'.
> CSP mentioned the many tokens on a printed page.  The next step is
> to point out that vocal tokens of 'the' are also marks that can be
> interpreted as tokens of that same type.
>
> JAS
>
>> I have no problem with mark/token/type, but "predicate" and
>> "proposition" usually designate symbols.
>>
>
> That point leads to the question why the "triple trichotomy" has
> three rows.  The first row (mark token type) is the *material*
> triad:  A mark is an uninterpreted sign of some observable
> material.  A token is an interpretation of that material.  And
> a type is a habit or law that determines the interpretation.
>
> The second row (icon index symbol) is the *relational* triad:
> An icon is a token of some observable pattern among its parts.
> An index is a sign of a causal relation among the parts.  And a
> symbol is a sign of some habit or law that determines the cause.
>
> The third row (predicate, proposition, argument) is the *formal*
> triad.  A predicate is a symbol of some relation.  A proposition
> is a symbol that asserts the relation.  And an argument is a
> symbol (one or more propositions) that justifies the assertion.
>
> JA
>
>> As far as "predicate" and "proposition" go, usage varies promiscuously.
>>
>
> Logicians are consistent in the way they use those words.  And their
> usage corresponds to the way that Peirce used the terms 'rhema' and
> 'dicent sign'.   Nominalists like Quine may prefer the word 'sentence'
> to 'proposition', but a sentence is definitely a dicent sign.
>
> A predicate or rhema has one or more slots or pegs (in CSP's diagrams)
> or variables (in the linear notations by CSP and his successors).
> Since the referents of the slots or variables are not specified,
> the predicate cannot make an assertion.  It has no truth value.
>
> A proposition or dicent sign has all the slots or variables replaced
> by signs that designate referents.  In a context in which a proposition
> is asserted, it has a truth value.  In a 3-valued logic, 'unknown' is
> a possible truth value.  Peirce also discussed issues of vagueness,
> which raise further questions.  But they don't affect the distinction
> between predicates and propositions.
>
> 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 [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 .




Reply via email to