<span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:12px"></span><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:12px"></span>
<div> </div> <span style="color:rgb(33, 33, 33); font-family:arial,sans-serif; font-size:16px; white-space:pre-wrap">Would you agree that these internal vs. external distinctions (which I readily admit) are superfluous with regard to the classification of signs? It is a necessary condition to continue the debate, it seems to me ...<br> <br> In addition, do you know my thesaurus </span><br> <br> <span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:12px"></span><a href="http://www.iupui.edu/~arisbe/rsources/76DEFS/76defs.HTM";>http://www.iupui.edu/~arisbe/rsources/76DEFS/76defs.HTM ?</a><br> <br> Having made this work (which seemed to me absolutely necessary to avoid the bias of the arbitrary choices made by the editors of the CP , with in addition an anarchic chronological dispersion of the items) I am engaged me in a kind of linear regression by the method of the least squares, a good metaphor for me to describe one "method of the least gaps with the thinking of the master". <span style="color:rgb(33, 33, 33); font-family:arial,sans-serif; font-size:16px; white-space:pre-wrap">I made an animated gif</span> <div><span style="color:rgb(33, 33, 33); font-family:arial,sans-serif; font-size:16px; white-space:pre-wrap">which expresses my choices globally ... it dynamically represents semiosis with successive triads ad infinitum ; it can be complicated by introducing the 2 objects and the 3 interpretants</span> :<br> <br> http://semiotiquedure.online/images/sch038.gif<br> <br> <span style="font-size:16px"><em style="color:rgb(33, 33, 33); font-family:inherit; font-style:italic; white-space:pre-wrap">do you think it is compatible with your own choices?<br> <br> Best Regards,<br> Robert Marty</em></span> <div class="gl_quote" style="margin-top: 20px; padding-top: 5px;">De : "Jon Alan Schmidt"<br> A : [email protected]<br> Envoyé: dimanche 23 septembre 2018 22:36<br> Objet : ***SPAM*** Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Terminology of Peirce's final sign classification<br> <div class="gl_quoted"> <div dir="ltr"> <div dir="ltr"> <div dir="ltr"> <div dir="ltr"> <div dir="ltr">Robert, List: <div> </div> <div>All of the trichotomies are divisions into the <em>Universes </em>of Possibles, Existents, and Necessitants. I only distinguish "Mode of Presentation" from "Mode of Being" because <em>Peirce </em>clearly did so.</div> <div> </div> </div> </div> <blockquote style="margin:0px 0px 0px 40px;border:none;padding:0px"> <div dir="ltr"> <div dir="ltr"> <div>CSP: The ten respects according to which the chief divisions of signs are determined are as follows: first, according to the Mode of Apprehension of the Sign itself; second, according to the Mode of Presentation of the Immediate Object; third, according to the Mode of Being of the Dynamical Object, fourth, according to the Relation of the Sign to its Dynamical Object, fifth, according to the Mode of Presentation of the Immediate Interpretant, sixth, according to the Mode of Being of the Dynamical Interpretant, seventh, according to the Relation of the Sign to the Dynamical Interpretant, eighth, according to the Nature of the Normal Interpretant, ninth, according to the Relation of the Sign to the Normal Interpretant, tenth, according to the Triadic Relation of the Sign to the Dynamical Object and to its Normal Interpretant ...</div> <div>A Sign is necessarily in itself present to the Mind of its Interpreter. Now there are three entirely different ways in which Objects are present to minds ... (CP 8.344-346, EP 2:482-483; 1908)</div> </div> </div> </blockquote> <div dir="ltr"> <div dir="ltr"> <div> </div> <div>The Sign itself is divided according to its "Mode of Apprehension" or "Modes of possible Presentation"; and the Immediate Object and Interpretant, which are <em>internal </em>to the Sign, are both divided according to their "Mode of Presentation"; while the Dynamic Object and Interpretant, which are <em>external </em>to the Sign, are divided according to their "Mode of Being." If a "Mode of Presentation" is no different from a "Mode of Being," why did Peirce use two different terms? And why was he consistent about applying one to the <em>internal </em>correlates and the other to the <em>external </em>correlates? Surely this is not coincidental.</div> <div> </div> <div>On the other hand, as we recently discussed on the List, Peirce's architectonic requires that within the Normative Science of Logic as Semeiotic, <span style="background-color:rgb(255,255,255); display:inline; float:none; font-size:small; text-decoration-color:initial; text-decoration-style:initial">"Mode of Being"</span> must be understood <em>Phaneroscopically</em>, rather than <em>Metaphysically</em>. In other words, both "Mode of Presentation" and "Mode of Being" must have something to do with how the correlates <em>appear</em> to the mind, not with how they <em>really are</em>, since Normative Science does not yet address the <em>Reality </em>of any phenomena. At most, we are performing a kind of hypostatic abstraction when we use metaphysical terminology to discuss logical concepts.</div> <div> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> <blockquote style="margin:0 0 0 40px;border:none;padding:0px"> <div dir="ltr"> <div dir="ltr"> <div dir="ltr"> <div dir="ltr"> <div>CSP: The logician is not concerned with any metaphysical theory; still less, if possible, is the mathematician. But it is highly convenient to express ourselves in terms of a metaphysical theory; and we no more bind ourselves to an acceptance of it than we do when we use substantives such as "humanity," "variety," etc., and speak of them as if they were substances, in the metaphysical sense. (EP 2:304; 1904)</div> </div> </div> </div> </div> </blockquote> <div dir="ltr"> <div dir="ltr"> <div dir="ltr"> <div dir="ltr"> <div> </div> <div>Regards,</div> <div class="gmail_extra"> <div> <div class="gmail_signature"> <div dir="ltr"> <div> <div dir="ltr"> <div>Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA</div> <div>Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman</div> <div><a href="http://www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt"; target="_blank">www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt</a> - <a href="http://twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt"; target="_blank">twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt</a></div> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> <div class="gmail_quote">On Sun, Sep 23, 2018 at 2:04 PM, marty.robert <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:[email protected]"; target="_blank">[email protected]</a>></span> wrote: <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><span style="font-size:16px"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif">Jon Alan, list </span></span><br> <br> Just a question before a general critic ... You distinguish "mode of presentation" and "mode of being "... "mode of presentation" appears only 3 times in the totality of the CP, in 8.344 only ... I am confident that you have read 8.345 :<br> <span style="font-size:16px"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><em>"</em></span></span><em>345. The ten divisions appear to me to be all Trichotomies; but it is possible that some of them are not properly so. Of these Ten Trichotomies, I have a clear apprehension of some, (which I mark {d} for {délos}), an unsatisfactory and doubtful notion of others (which I mark {a} for {adélos}), and a tolerable but not thoroughly tried conception of others (which I mark {m} for {metrios}, {s} for {schedon}, almost clear, {ch} for {chalepös} hardly better than {a})."</em><br> and you read also : "<em>Peirce: CP 8.347 : Consequently, Signs, in respect to their<strong> Modes of possible Presentation</strong>, are divisible (Σ) into :<br> A.<strong> Potisigns</strong>, or Objects which are signs so far as they are merely possible, but felt to be positively possible; as, for example, the seventh ray that passes through the three intersections of opposite sides of Pascal's hexagram.<br> B. <strong>Actisigns, </strong>or Objects which are Signs as Experienced hic et nunc; suchs any single word in a single place in a single sentence of a single paragraph of a single page of a single copy of a book. There may be repetition of the whole paragraph, this word included, in another place. But that other occurrence is not this word. The book may be printed in an edition of ten thousand; but THIS word is only in my copy.<br> C. <strong>Famisigns,</strong> familiar signs, which must be General, as General signs must be familiar or composed of Familiar signs. (I speak of signs which are "general," not in the sense of signifying Generals, but as being themselves general; just as Charlemagne is general, in that it occurs many times with one and the same denotation.)"</em><br> <br> If a mode of presentation is not a mode of being how come that A, B, C are clearly categorial divisions according modes of being ? We have an usual trichotomy ... How come ?<br> <br> Regards,<br> <br> Robert Marty<br> Professeur Honoraire, PhD Mathematics, PhD Humanities, Free Thinker <img alt="clin d'oeil" src="https://msc01.s-sfr.fr/fr_FR/smiley/wink_smile.png"; title="clin d'oeil"></blockquote> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> <!-- PART SEPARATOR --><br> <br> <br> <br> -----------------------------<br> 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 .<br> <br> <br> <br> </div> <div class="gl_quoted"> </div> </div> </div>
----------------------------- 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 .
![https://msc01.s-sfr.fr/fr_FR/smiley/wink_smile.png"](https://msc01.s-sfr.fr/fr_FR/smiley/wink_smile.png"){kind=link}