Jon, list,
If icon, index, symbol are not classes (of the sign´s object relation), at least they are components of sign classification, so they are a matter of classification, not modality, neither composition.
As I wrote, I find the term "modality" misleading too, so I agree. I rather call it functional composition, applying to all those cases, in which 1ns is composed of one part, 2ns of two, and 3ns of three. In Peirces writings I have found this to be the case in:
- sign, object, interpretant: Sign composed of one part, object of two, interpretant of three.
- primisense, altersense, medisense (components of consciousness). One primisense part, two altersense parts, three...
- Are there any more examples??
Best,
Helmut
Helmut, 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 .Icon, Index, and Symbol are not classes; they correspond to the division of Signs according to only one trichotomy, that of the relation between the Sign and its (Dynamic) Object.
I think that discussing Signs in terms of "modality" is misleading. Again, each trichotomy is not a division into three modes, but rather three Universes--Possibles, Existents, and Necessitants. In fact, Peirce used "mode" to characterize the basis for some of the Correlate divisions themselves--"Mode of Being" for the Dynamic Object and Interpretant, "Mode of Presentation" for the Immediate Object and Interpretant, and "Mode of Apprehension" for the Sign itself.
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman
On Sat, Sep 1, 2018 at 11:53 AM, Helmut Raulien <[email protected]> wrote:
Jon, list,I also think, that taxonomy, classification, is a different dimension than modality. Of whichever class the object relation is, icon, index, or symbol, in any case the object is, regarding modality, of category 2, and consists of immediate (2.1), and dynamic (2.2) object. In the dimension of classification, all three, 1ns, 2ns, and 3ns, have three subcategories, e.g. 1ns: (1/1), (1/2), (1/3), that would be in this case quali-, sin,-, legisign. But in modality, a 1ns only has one mode (1.1), and a 2ns two: (2.1), (2.2). To not confuse classification with modality subcategories, I have written the former with obliques, and the latter with dots.I think that classification is a spatial or existent "either-or-" distinction, and modality is a functional "and"- matter. In common speech though, "mode" suggests a temporal "either-or"- matter, like an alarm clock being in the "snooze- mode", for as long as it is put there. Because of this, I do not like this term "modality", and rather call it "functional composition". Maybe the term meaning of "mode" has changed since Peirce??Best,Helmut
----------------------------- 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 .
