Jon,
I’m inclined to agree with Bellucci that from NDTR (1903) on, the division that
applies to the Sign in itself is always the first trichotomy listed, and is the
same trichotomy despite the name changes. (Bellucci also cites another list of
the ten trichotomies, R 795, where the first is given as Idea/Token/Type.) I’ve
never thought there was any difference between Qualisign/Sinsign/Legisign and
Potisign/Actisign/Famisign (the 1908 terms). I think you’re being distracted by
Peirce’s 1904 use of “Replica” and trying to make it fit with the 1908 schema,
where it is absent. Anyway, that explains why I find it so difficult to apply
your schema. It just stretches the terminology too much for me.
Gary f.
} The way the self arrays itself is the form of the entire world. [Dogen] {
<http://gnusystems.ca/wp/> http://gnusystems.ca/wp/ }{ Turning Signs gateway
From: Jon Alan Schmidt <[email protected]>
Sent: 28-Mar-18 14:07
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Three Interpretants
Gary F., List:
On your analysis--in which the Dynamic Interpretant is Peirce answering, which
is considered to be an exertion rather than another Sign--his wife's question
is Percussive.
On my current analysis, the Mode of Being of a Sign is always and only that of
a Type. The 1908 division that corresponds to the Sign itself is according to
its Mode of Apprehension or Presentation, not its Mode of Being. Any
instantiation of a Sign--for example, any word that is actually spoken,
written, typed, or thought--is a Replica, because every Sign "is of such a
nature as to exist in replicas" (EP 2:303; 1904, emphasis in original).
Speaking, writing, typing, and thinking are all occurrences that have a
duration, and as such the words that they produce along the way must exist.
Each utterance, even if only thought rather than spoken aloud (or written or
typed), brings a Sign into existence, as a Token of a Type. As I have said
before, the two Quasi-minds in my diagram can be temporally successive versions
of the same Quasi-mind.
CSP: ... two separate minds are not requisite for the operation of a sign.
Thus the premisses of an argument are a sign of the truth of the conclusion;
yet it is essential to argument that the same mind that thinks the conclusion
as such should also think the premisses. Indeed, two minds in communication
are, in so far, "at one," that is, are properly one mind in that part of them.
(EP 2:389; 1906)
CSP: To begin with, every concept and every thought beyond immediate
perception is a sign ... Let anybody who may desire evidence of the truth of
what I am saying just recall the course of what passed in his mind during some
recent sincere and fervid self-deliberation. If he is a good introspector, he
will remark that his deliberations took a dialogic form, the arguer of any
moment appealing to the reasonableness of the ego of the succeeding moment for
his critical assent. Now, it is needless to say that conversation is composed
of signs. Accordingly, we find the sort of mind that is least sophisticated and
is surest to betray itself by its language is given to such expressions as "I
says to myself, says I," or even to audibly talking to himself ... Oh, I am
confident the reader will grant that every thought is a sign. (EP 2:402; 1907)
In this sense, there is no sharp distinction between thinking and talking to
oneself out loud; both require a succession of Replicas, since that is the only
way in which the Signs being thought or spoken can exist. Of course I agree
that the Replicas of one Sign can and often do produce Replicas of different
Signs as their Dynamic Interpretants; but on my analysis, this only happens
after the initial communication of the first Sign from one Quasi-mind to
another.
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman
www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt <http://www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt>
- twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt <http://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 [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 .
