Jerry, List,
Maybe in the analogy with chemistry and physics one might say: Chemical composition is one thing, and classification into solids, liquids and gases another. Something is either a gas, a liquid, or a solid, and you cannot tell which one, by just looking at the chemical composition.
That is, because additional information is needed: Temperature and pressure.
To tell whether something is a legisign, it also is not enough to look at the composition. You also need additional information, eg. whether the aligned letters or words make sense.
Best,
Helmut
Helmut, Kirsti, List:
----------------------------- 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 .
On Aug 3, 2017, at 2:54 PM, Helmut Raulien <[email protected]> wrote:But composition is just a matter different from classification. Therefore a sign relation is either a quali- or a sini-, or a legisign, no matter what a sini- or a legisign is composed of.
On Aug 3, 2017, at 4:37 PM, Jerry Rhee <[email protected]> wrote:So then, what is it to be whole for all who investigate?
On Aug 4, 2017, at 1:39 AM, [email protected] wrote:
Concernig the supplement:
Not just continental hybris, to my mind. I agree with Apel on this "something higher". Kirsti
Not just continental hybris, to my mind. I agree with Apel on this "something higher". Kirsti
My comment is again a polar opposite to Kirsti’s.
CSP was seeking “something deeper” in his sense of meaning.
In his lifetime, the logic of chemistry was utterly mysterious. It was mysterious because of
"
a sign relation is either a quali- or a sini-, or a legisign, no matter what a sini- or a legisign is composed of.
That is, the chemical sign relations fails to preserve the predicates of the sinsigns, that is, the quali-signs, that is the physical properties of matter, under the compositions of the legi-signs.
The simple example of this abstract logic is the composition of water from hydrogen and oxygen.
The intrinsic electrical nature of the chemical sciences is necessary to compose a quantitative logic for rationalizing the formation of water from hydrogen and oxygen. This physical logic depends on scientific theories that were created only after CSP past away.
Thus, the three classifications of signs that were developed by CSP:
quali-sign, sin-sign and legi-sign
do not distinguish between the separate and distinct logics of the sentences of symbols of alphabets (propositions), mathematics (equations) and chemistry (reactions).
To make 21 st Century pragmatic sense out of the “quali-sign, sin-sign and legi-sign” relationships, one must look at deeper forms of multiple "universal logics” in the sense of Tarski’s meta-languages.
It seems to me that a consistent philosophical reading of CSP depends on the linguistic competencies of the reader. CSP mastered several pre-meta-languages and several symbol systems and modern readers are faced with the challenging task of grasping which of several possible meta-languages he was expressing his beliefs within the temporal history of his lifespan.
Further, it seems to me that several Procrustean beds are ready used by philosophers to avoid the difficulties of grasping the composition of CSP’s natural logical classes and categories.
Cheers
Jerry
----------------------------- 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 .
