Robert, List: How can our understanding of the different correlates be "superfluous" to the classification of Signs accordingly? For one thing, the internal/external distinction helps explain why there are additional trichotomies for the (external) relations between the Sign and the Dynamic Object/Interpretant, but not the (internal) relations between the Sign and the Immediate Object/Interpretant. Again, why did Peirce divide Signs according to the Mode of *Presentation *of the *internal *correlates vs. the Mode of *Being *of the *external* correlates, if he did not consider *both *of these distinctions to be noteworthy and perhaps connected?
I have come across your "76 Definitions" in the past, but have not reviewed it recently. I agree that many of the editorial choices for CP were unfortunate, and wish that the Peirce Edition Project had made much better progress to date at publishing the Writings in chronological order. As for your animation, it reflects the notion of infinite semiosis, although it only proceeds forward rather than also reaching backward. My understanding of Peirce's late view is that he came to recognize the *termination *of semiosis upon the production of a *feeling *or *effort *as the Dynamic Interpretant, rather than another Sign, or a *habit *or *habit-change* as the ultimate Logical Interpretant. Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt On Mon, Sep 24, 2018 at 5:51 AM, <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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 ... > In addition, do you know my thesaurus > > http://www.iupui.edu/~arisbe/rsources/76DEFS/76defs.HTM ? > <http://www.iupui.edu/~arisbe/rsources/76DEFS/76defs.HTM> > > 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". I made an animated gif 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 : > > http://semiotiquedure.online/images/sch038.gif > > > > *do you think it is compatible with your own choices? Best Regards, Robert > Marty* >
----------------------------- 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 .
