Ben, List: Thanks for the comments and links. I read some of those old threads where Bernard laid out his theory about the ten trichotomies when I was trying to figure out my own view. Where I sit right now is the rather conventional 3-2-1-4-5-6-7-8-9-10, except that I adjust Peirce's terminology such that 5 (Ii) is a range of possible feelings/actions/thoughts, 6 (Id) is an actual feeling/action/thought, 7 (S-Id) is rheme/dicent/argument, 8 (If) is a habit of feeling/action/thought, and 9 (S-If) is suggestive/imperative/indicative (or presented/urged/submitted). Of course, further discussion about this would belong in a new thread.
Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 2:15 PM, Benjamin Udell <baud...@gmail.com> wrote: > Jon S., list, > > I just remembered that Bernard Morand, now retired, of Institut > Universitaire de Technologie (France), Département Informatique, who used > to be quite active on peirce-l, wrote a book published in 2004 _Logique > de la Conception: Figures de sémiotique générale d'après Charles S. Peirce > _ [Logic of Design: Illustrations of General Semiotic After Charles S. > Peirce] http://www.iupui.edu/~arisbe/pastbooks.htm#morand . > > In 2004 I had no idea that it was about design, I didn't know that the > French word _*conception*_ can simply mean "design." A few years ago I > got him to agree to translate into English its foreword which was available > gratis online. The English translation of the foreword is at > http://www.iupui.edu/~arisbe/menu/library/aboutcsp/morand/co > nception-fwd.htm . > > He once provided us with this image of Peirce's diagram of the three sign > trichotomies: > http://lyris.ttu.edu/read/attachment/220287/2-2/moz-screenshot-1.jpg > which now adorns the top of the Peirce Blog http://csp3.blogspot.com/ > > In his 2004 book, he makes an argument for the ordering of the ten > sign-trichotomies as: > 3-2-1-4-10-9-8-7-6-5 > > He discussed it at peirce-l in "Re: Symbol vs. iconized index" 2008-10-27 > 16:23:57 > http://lyris.ttu.edu/read/messages?id=2105468#2105468 > > Here's a diagram that I made showing his view: > http://lyris.ttu.edu/read/attachment/2111107/2/10ad3.GIF > > Best, Ben > > On 3/2/2017 1:24 PM, Benjamin Udell wrote: > > Jon S, list, > > In your Part 4 "Beyond Engineering", you wrote, > > pronounced “rep-re-sen-TAY-men” > > Happy to see the correct stress placement (as Peirce had it in the Century > Dictionary, and John Deely pushed for it too), but it'd be even better if > the "s" were a "z". > > I'd guess that you'd count such "ruling arts" (their old label) as design, > architecture, community planning, — arts of governing, being governed, and > self-governing, — as parts of engineering (and other productive > sciences/arts such as medicine) in some broad sense. > > A decade or more ago, I used to argue here at peirce-l that there's > difference between (A) will, decision-making, character, ethics, etc., and > (B) ability, carrying-out, competence, (and what I dubbed "cheiromenics"), > etc.; for example, we don't regard flaws of character per se as flaws of > competence per se, or vice versa (although for example a character flaw > such as recklessness can lead to needlessly incompetent practice). Well, I > got tired of arguing about it, obviously. > > Anyway, I'd still regard design etc. as knowledge, or at least conception, > of forces, strengths, impetuses, whereby to decide things or, at any rate, > for things to get decided, as opposed to engineering etc. as know-how, > knowledge of means. Apparently, at one time design was seen by many as > simply the application of maths of optimization. Engineering obviously > involves the application of probability maths and statistics, although in > its design aspects it does get involved with optimization. > > What I'm saying is that design, architecture, community planning, > constitution-writing, education intending the building of character, etc., > don't seem to be simply aimed, as in the old formula, at "useful + > beautiful", i.e., engineering with aesthetic art along for the ride in an > added sidecar. > > The distinction seems parallel to that between two kinds of > decision-making itself (A) political (and martial) affairs (decision-making > in regard to decision-making, deciding who or what gets to decide) and (B) > economic, business, financial affairs (decision-making as to means, > resources, etc.). > > I seem to remember that I broached this subject with you once before, but > I forget. I doubt that I'll convince any Peirceans that the will-ability > distinction is quite basic (they tend to be satisfied with Peirce's > trichotomy of will, feeling, and general conception), still I'd draw your > attention to the above distinction as worth attention at some level, if not > the most basic level, in your work and meditation on the logic of ingenuity. > > Best, Ben > >
----------------------------- 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 .
