List, JonAS: Shortly after you posted this message, I departed on an extended business trip and sort of dropped out of this discussion. Recent thoughts bring me back around to these questions from a different and I believe, a better grounded perspective on the grammar of the triple triad.
The specific triple triad that I am referring too is as follows: Qualisign Sinsign Legisign Icon Index Symbol Rhema Dicisign Argument Over the past two decades, inquiries into these nine terms have resulted in multiple “back and forths” among list members. Often, these posts have included two or three or four of these terms and there interrelated meanings and associated grammatical renderings. In one exceptional case, John Sowa has opened new territory by presenting a detailed narrative that related all nine terms. This is in Figure 6.14 of his book, Knowledge Representation (2000). The book is directed toward Artificial Intelligence students as well as others. One should also note Gary R.s schema is somehow related to this issue. Several years ago, I posted to this list serve, a narrative that was coherent for four of the nine terms, Qualisign Sinsign Icon Index I now have reason to believe that this is only partially correct with respect to CSP’s views on material propositions. The following open question is addressed to all list members. Is anyone aware of any complete schema for addressing all nine terms of the triple triad in a coherent narrative? This is a (rather superficial) search is for any published or un-published schema. If anyone has unpublished versions that they wish to keep private, please respond to my private email and I will respect your confidentiality. To re-iterate, has anyone else besides John Sowa developed a coherent view of CSP triple triad? Cheers Jerry > On Sep 28, 2018, at 9:52 AM, Jon Alan Schmidt <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Jerry C., List: > > I am not sure what you are requesting; this is only a first step toward > assessing the viability and potential usefulness of my alternative > theoretical framework for Speculative Grammar. > > Please note that I utilized five trichotomies, not three; and only two of > them are ones that Peirce included in his 1903 taxonomy. > > Are you seeking "a logical argument that states a proposition" to support > each listed example (and perhaps others) as being in that class? > > Are you only interested in differentiating the six classes that are > Arguments, or all 21 proposed classes for Instances of Signs? > > I do not have John Sowa's book; perhaps you (or he) could post Figure 6.14 to > help me understand what you have in mind. > > Thanks, > > 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> > On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 10:44 PM, Jerry LR Chandler > <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > 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 > > ----------------------------- > 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 .
