Corrigendum: I meant to address my last post also to Auke. GR *Gary Richmond* *Philosophy and Critical Thinking* *Communication Studies* *LaGuardia College of the City University of New York*
On Thu, Mar 28, 2019 at 4:45 PM Gary Richmond <[email protected]> wrote: > Helmut, Jon, Gary F, > > For each and every of the 10 sign classes given at EP2:296, "Nomenclature > and Division of Triadic Relations," for example, the central sign class in > the triangle, Rhematic Indexical Legisign, the first term refers to the > relation of the sign to its Interpretant, the second to the sign in its > relation to the Object, and only the third to the Sign in itself. Peirce is > explicit about this. > > "Signs are divisible by three trichotomies: first, according as the sign in > itself is a mere quality, is an actual existent, or is a general law; > secondly, > according as the relation of the sign to its Object consists in the sign's > having > some character in itself, or in some existential relation to that Object, > or in its > relation to an Interpretant; thirdly, according as its Interpretant > represents it > as a sign of possibility, or as a sign of fact, or a sign of reason. > > "According to the first division, a Sign may be termed a Qualisign, a > Sinsign, > or a Legisign. > > "A Qualisign is a quality which is a sign. It cannot actually act as a > sign until > it is embodied; but the embodiment has nothing to do with its character as > a > sign. > > "A Sinsign (where the syllable sin is taken as meaning "being only once," > as > in single, simple, Latin semel, etc.) is an actual existent thing or event > which is a sign. It can only be so through its qualities; so that it > involves a qualisign, > or rather, several qualisigns. But these qualisigns are of a peculiar kind > and > only form a sign through being actually embodied. > > "A Legisign is a law that is a sign. This law is usually established by > men. > Every conventional sign is a legisign. It is not a single object, but a > general > type which, it has been agreed, shall be significant. Every legisign > signifies > through an instance of its application, which may be termed a Replica of > it. > EP2:291 > > In the diagram of the 10 Classes of Signs Peirce reverse the above order > so that for each class the SIgn in itself is given last. > > We've taken this matter up several times on the list, for example, in > consideration of Peirce's saying that there are no pure icons: so, some > signs are 'iconic'. I would suggest that that is so for the 'indexical' > signs as well. > > That Peirce expresses the relation of the sign to the Interpretant and to > the Object *adjectivally* is significant. Or, if one doesn't think it's > significant, why not? As I see it Helmut has a point from this purely > theoretical standpoint (vs. the use of signs in, say, a proposition, or, > the placement of signs in a particular Existential Graph). > > Best, > > Gary R > > > *Gary Richmond* > *Philosophy and Critical Thinking* > *Communication Studies* > *LaGuardia College of the City University of New York* > > > > > On Thu, Mar 28, 2019 at 3:56 PM <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Helmut, >> >> No, Jon has it exactly right. Study the “Nomenclature and Division of >> Triadic Relations” (in EP2 or CP) and you’ll see. >> >> Gary f. >> >> >> >> *From:* Helmut Raulien <[email protected]> >> *Sent:* 28-Mar-19 15:09 >> >> >> >> Jon, Auke, list, >> >> isnt it so, that in the context of sign classification a sign is either a >> quali-, sin-, or legisign, all of which may or may not have the adjective >> "rhematic"? So, in this context, "a rheme" is not regarded as a sign, but >> "rhematic" is regarded as an adjective, a trait of a sign resp. its >> interpretant relation? >> >> Leaving this context, but still to be in accord with it , I would propose >> saying, that a rheme or seme (I havent got the difference) "is" not a sign, >> but can function as a sign, if it is perceived, and then this sign "is" >> rhematic, but "is" a quali-, sin-, or legisign, but not "is a rheme"? >> >> Best, >> >> Helmut >> >> >> >> 28. März 2019 um 19:39 Uhr >> "Jon Alan Schmidt" <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> Auke, List: >> >> >> >> AvB: I prefer terms like Rhematic in order to underscore that it always >> is about sign aspects ... >> >> >> >> No, it is not. Again, the trichtomies do not identify "sign aspects" or >> "aspects of signs"; there are *zero* instances of *any *such phrase in >> the eight volumes of CP and two volumes of EP. Peirce proposed the three >> trichotomies of 1903 and the ten trichotomies of 1906-1908 as alternative >> bases for identifying mutually exclusive *classes *of Signs. Every Sign >> *theoretically >> *belongs to *exactly one* of the ten classes of 1903, and would belong >> to *exactly one* of the 66 classes of 1906-1908 if anyone ever managed >> to sort them all out. >> >> >> >> Every Sign is either a Seme, a Proposition, or an Argument; and every >> Sign is either an Icon, an Index, or a Symbol. In accordance with the >> "rule of determination" (EP 2:481; 1908), every Argument is a Symbol, and >> every Proposition is either an Index or a Symbol; while a Seme can be an >> Icon, an Index, or a Symbol. >> >> >> >> AvB: Although a rheme cannot perform an indexical function ... >> >> >> >> I am aware of no warrant for this statement whatsoever from Peirce's >> writings. If a Sign is a Rhematic Index (Indexical Seme), then by >> definition it is a Rheme (Seme) that *can* and *does *perform an >> indexical function. >> >> >> >> AvB: When we think of a composite sentence like "there is a cow". >> 'there' is the replica index and 'a cow' the symbolical, rhematic legisign >> of the compound forged by the copula. >> >> >> >> In this context, "there" is a pronoun, hence a Rhematic Indexical >> Legisign; i.e., a Rheme (Seme) that performs an indexical function. By >> itself, it is certainly not a Dicisign (Proposition), which is the only >> alternative classification for an Index. >> >> >> >> AvB: I don't see any harm in distinguishing an index as a possible, >> without actual indexical function and an index in actu. >> >> >> >> If a Sign is not performing any actual indexical function, how could it >> be properly classified as an Index at all? >> >> >> >> Regards, >> >> >> >> Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA >> >> Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman >> >> www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt >> >> >> >> >> >
----------------------------- 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 .
