Gary R., List: I am delighted at the prospect of a "peaceful" resolution to this matter, and only wish to clarify one more thing.
GR: It appears to me that Jon and Gary F are working (on different, but not unrelated projects) much more in Critical Logic (the second branch of Semeiotic where, for example, EGs play an important role) and are moving toward discussions of Methodeutic (or Theoretical Rhetoric, the final branch in which Pragmatism comes into play as method). Both have noted that for them certain elements of Theoretical Grammar aren't important to their inquiries. On the contrary, I consider my current efforts to fall almost entirely *within *Speculative Grammar. Even when I discuss EGs, I am primarily focusing on how they represent *Propositions*, rather than the *process of reasoning* that is the domain of Logical Critic. However, what I am tentatively developing is not identical to *Peirce's *Speculative Grammar; in particular, it does not use his trichotomies for the six correlates (Sign, two Objects, three Interpretants) to *classify Signs* as much as to *explicate Semeiosis*. That is because I am ultimately interested in how Semeiotic furnishes principles to Metaphysics, as my next post in the "Logical Analysis of Signs" thread will reflect. Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt On Fri, Mar 29, 2019 at 12:14 PM Gary Richmond <[email protected]> wrote: > Jon, Auke, Gary F, Helmut, List, > > Well, I guess I do have a bit more to add to this discussion. Fortunately, > I'm beginning to think that we may not have to "agree to disagree" but may > indeed be on the road to more or less complete agreement. That rarely > happens in this forum, so I suppose I shouldn't set my hopes *too* high. > But at the moment I see no real obstacle to that full agreement. > > Jon pointed to Helmut's post which began the discussion: > > HR: 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? > > > The answer to Helmut's first question, yes, *qua* sign any and every sign > is surely one of the three: qualisign, sinsign, or legisign (at least as > analyzed by Peirce in 1904). > > But as to the adjectives used in the 1904 Classification of Signs, they > are at least misleading, and even in that classification Peirce is not > consistent in assigning adjectives for the relation of the Sign to its > Interpretant or to its Object, as both Jon and Gary F have noted. > > As I've argued in the past, IF one sees the three relations of the sign > categorially such that the association of the relation of the sign to its > interpretant is categorial 3ns, to its object is 2ns, and to the sign > itself is 1ns (and from past discussions on the list it appears that some > here do *not *see these three categorially), but *if* one does see then > categorially, then Peirce is merely naming these involutionally (cf. the > discussion in "The Logic of Mathematics"), that is, for each class the > interpretant (3ns) involves the object (2ns) which involves the sign itself > (1ns)--and that the adjectives, again used inconsistently by Peirce, are a > mere stylistic whim, perhaps meant to have the involutions seem to read > more "grammatically," as it were. There is *no* importance to be attached > to the adjectives other than this stylistic move. > > Jon also brings up (as does Gary F in another thread) the different > purposes of various analyses. I agree that this is a crucial consideration. > The Classification of Signs is, as I see it, a part of Semeiotic Grammar, > the first branch of Logic as Semeiotic. In this branch it is in my view > important, for example, to see the sign qua sign will indeed be a > qualisign, a sinsign, or a legisign. And there are interesting and, > perhaps, important things to note in that regard. I've mentioned a few in > passing already, but I'll add to those the fact that most, six of the sign > categories, are legisigns, only three are sinsigns, and there is but one > qualisignific sign class (I purposely made that noun an adjective as a way > of emphasizing Jon's and Gary F's point that the adjectival forms have *no > *signific meaning). > > It appears to me that Jon and Gary F are working (on different, but not > unrelated projects) much more in Critical Logic (the second branch of > Semeiotic where, for example, EGs play an important role) and are moving > toward discussions of Methodeutic (or Theoretical Rhetoric, the final > branch in which Pragmatism comes into play as method). Both have noted that > for them certain elements of Theoretical Grammar aren't important to their > inquiries. That makes sense to me. > > I suppose that in these recent discussions I have meant principally to > suggest that since Critic and Methodeutic are, as it were, built on > Semeiotic Grammar, that findings in that branch ought be kept in at least > the back of ones mind even as some of those findings aren't necessarily > relevant to ones inquiries. It seems to me that Jon and Gary F, at least > for the most part, do just that. > > Best, > > Gary R > > *Gary Richmond* > *Philosophy and Critical Thinking* > *Communication Studies* > *LaGuardia College of the City University of New York* > >>
----------------------------- 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 .
