List, Jon: I personally find it difficult to understand the significance of your creation.
It would become meaningful if you looked at the three trichotomies and your derivatives as meaningful systems of argumentation. That is, for each term, associate it (and as many other terms as needed) with a logical argument that states a proposition. Thats all. Just show me that it is pragmatically useful for separating out closely related argumentative styles or types. You might look at John Sowa’s Fig. 6.14, p. 397, as an example of what I am referring to. Cheers Jerry > On Sep 27, 2018, at 8:57 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt <[email protected]> > wrote: > > List: > > After further consideration, I have decided that the Interpretant division > that should be retained in a five-trichotomy, 21-class taxonomy is the one > according to the Purpose of the Final Interpretant, rather than the one > according to the Mode of Being of the Dynamic Interpretant. The latter > instead serves as a stand-alone basis for recognizing an Instance of a Sign > whose actual effect on a Quasi-mind in the state of Informed Knowledge--a > Feeling, an Exertion, or another Instance of a Sign--is different from the > one that it would produce on a Quasi-mind in the state of Substantial > Knowledge. > > This is more consistent with Short's scheme, since his first trichotomy had > to do with the Sign's "interpretability." Attached is my initial attempt to > extend his table to include the first and last divisions. Following Peirce's > 1903 precedent, the bold italic words in each row are sufficient to designate > the corresponding class, which is named from right to left; e.g., Inducent > Index or Abducent Imperative Actuous Symbol. I would very much welcome > proposed corrections and additions to the listed examples, as well as > observations of any varieties of Signs that appear to be left out. > > Thanks, > > Jon S. > > On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 5:19 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > List: > > I have posted several different summaries recently of my current (still > tentative) understanding of Signs and their relations, which hinges on > carefully and consistently differentiating a Sign from its embodiment in a > Replica, and both of these from an Instance of the Sign as a one-time event. > Here is another one, and an updated table is also attached. > The Sign (Type) is an Entelechy in a genuine triadic relation with the > General Object and Final Interpretant. The General Object is the aggregate > of Matter that the Sign necessarily woulddenote, and the Final Interpretant > is the corresponding Form that the Sign necessarily wouldsignify, to an ideal > Quasi-mind with complete omniscience and thus infallible Interpretative > Habits; i.e., in the state of Substantial Knowledge. > The Sign-Instance (Token) is an occurrence in a degenerate triadic relation > with the Dynamic Object and Dynamic Interpretant. The Dynamic Object is the > individual Matter that the Sign-Instance actually does denote, and the > Dynamic Interpretant is the corresponding Form that the Sign-Instance > actually does signify, to a particular Quasi-mind with finite Collateral > Experience and thus fallible Interpretative Habits; i.e., in the state of > Informed Knowledge. > The Sign-Replica embodies significant characters (Tones) in a doubly > degenerate triadic relation with the Immediate Object and Immediate > Interpretant. The Immediate Object is the range of Matter that the > Sign-Replica possibly could denote, and the Immediate Interpretant is the > corresponding Form that the Sign-Replica possibly could signify, to a limited > Quasi-mind with mere Sign System Acquaintance and thus minimal Interpretative > Habits; i.e., in the state of Essential Knowledge. > > The upshot is that the Immediate Object and Interpretant pertain to the > Sign-Replica within its Sign System, while each Dynamic Object and > Interpretant pertain to a single Instance of the Sign; hence the need for the > Sign itself to have a General Object and Final Interpretant. In other words, > every Sign is a Collective, while every Sign-Instance is a Concretive. There > are no Abstractives, because a quality in itself cannot be represented by > anything except itself; every quality in itself is definite, such as this > shade of red, but every purported representation of it is irremediably vague; > e.g., "red" applies to a somewhat arbitrary spectrum of colors. > > Since all Arguments involve Dicisigns and all Dicisigns involve Rhemes, every > Sign either is a Rheme or involves Rhemes. Moreover, every Sign is a > Copulative according to its Immediate Object; but every proper name and every > quantified Replica of a Rheme is also a Designative, while every unquantified > Replica of a Rheme is also a Descriptive. With this in mind, as well as > Peirce's 1867 discussion of three different kinds of Logical Breadth and > Depth for terms (CP 2.407-417), we can identify the semeiotic correlates of a > monadic Rheme (one blank) as follows. > The General Object is the Sign's Substantial Breadth--the aggregate of the > Dynamic Objects of all Designatives that would fill the blank to make true > propositions. > The Dynamic Object is a factor of the Sign's Informed Breadth--the individual > Dynamic Object of any Designative that does fill the blank to make an > Instance (true or false) of a syntheticproposition; i.e., "the Object, which > occasions the use of the Sign" (R 200:E87; 1908). > The Immediate Object is the Sign's Essential Breadth--the range of > Designatives and other Descriptives that could fill the blank to make a > Replica of an analytic proposition within the Sign System. > The Final Interpretant is the Sign's Substantial Depth--the Real characters > that all truepropositions would attribute to the General Object. > The Dynamic Interpretant is an ingredient of the Sign's Informed Depth--the > specificcharacters that an Instance (true or false) of a synthetic > proposition does attribute to the Dynamic Object; i.e., " the possibilities > which are imagined or judged to be realized in those existents" (R 200:E87; > 1908). > The Immediate Interpretant is the Sign's Essential Depth--the defined > characters that a Replica of an analytic proposition could attribute to the > Immediate Object within the Sign System. > > Like all Signs, every Rheme has a General Object and Final Interpretant in > accordance with "the Truth," and every Replica thereof has an Immediate > Object and Immediate Interpretant in accordance with its Sign System. > However, only an Instance of a Rheme (term) that is involved in an Instance > of a Dicisign (proposition) has a Dynamic Object and Dynamic Interpretant. > > Finally, note that this approach eliminates the division of Signs for > classification purposes according to the Mode of Being of the Dynamic Object, > the Mode of Presentation of the Immediate Object, and the Mode of > Apprehension of the Sign itself. As such, I readily acknowledge that what I > am proposing is not Peirce's Speculative Grammar; nevertheless, I sincerely > believe that it is a legitimately Peircean Speculative Grammar. For reasons > that I spelled out several months ago > (https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/arc/peirce-l/2018-04/msg00016.html > <https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/arc/peirce-l/2018-04/msg00016.html>), the > remaining seven trichotomies are arranged in the logical (not temporal) > "order of determination" as follows. > Nature of Reference (GO-S/DO-SI) - Icon/Index/Symbol > Purpose of Final Interpretant - Gratific/Actuous/Temperative; i.e., to > produce Feeling/Action/Self-control > Mode of Being of Dynamic Interpretant - Sympathetic/Percussive/Usual; i.e., > Feeling/Exertion/Sign-Instance > Mode of Presentation of Immediate Interpretant - > Hypothetic/Categorical/Relative > Nature of Influence (S-FI) - Rheme/Dicisign/Argument or Seme/Pheme/Delome > Manner of Appeal (SI-DI) - Suggestive/Imperative/Indicative; i.e., > Presented/Urged/Submitted > Nature of Assurance (GO-S-FI) - Abducent/Inducent/Deducent; i.e., by > Instinct/Experience/Form > > Only four of these (#1, #2, #5, #7) apply to Signs as Types, resulting in 15 > classes. Employing all seven would provide a total of 36 classes for > Sign-Instances, but I suspect that in many cases we could omit #2 and #4 for > the sake of greater simplicity, leaving five trichotomies and 21 classes. > The middle three of these (#3, #5, #6) and their associated 10 classes are > basically what T. L. Short worked out through a posteriori analysis and > tabulated on p. 253 of his 2007 book, Peirce's Theory of Signs; however, he > associated the first division with the Immediate Interpretant, rather than > the Dynamic Interpretant. > > 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><21 Classes.jpg> > ----------------------------- > 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 .
----------------------------- 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 .
