Helmut, you wrote:
(is it agreed now, that sign is 1ns, object 2ns, and interpretant
3ns?)
I certainly don't agree that the sign/representamen is [always?] in
a categorical mode of 1ns, the object in 2ns, the interpretant in
3ns.
Do you mean the order of the semiosic process? This has nothing to
do with the categories, for, as Peirce outlined in the ten classes,
the triadic 'nodes' can be in any of the modal categories. How about
a Sign in 1-1-1, a rhematic iconic qualisgin, where all three nodes
are in a mode of 1ns?
Edwina
On Sat 25/04/20 2:11 PM , "Helmut Raulien" [email protected] sent:
Supplement: Please click on "full view" or synonym, otherwise
the table does not work. List, I still do not understand, why
the tree-structure should not be able to be applied to the sign
characters, meaning, there are more than three interpretants due to
the level of analysis. Starting from level 1, where you have one
class/character, a thirdness, on level two you have three, and so on:
level characters
number
of characters 1 (3)
1 2 (1);(2);(3)
3 3 (1.1); (2.1),(2.2); (3.1).(3.2),(3.3)
6 4 (1.1.1); (2.1.1); (2.2.1),(2.2.2); (3.1.1);
(3.2.1).(3.2.2); (3.3.1),(3.3.2),(3.3.3) 10 The
number of classes/characters is the former number of characters plus
the number of the new level. At level 7 you have 28 characters, and
at level 11 you have 66. Apart from sign classes and sign
characters (is it agreed now, that sign is 1ns, object 2ns, and
interpretant 3ns?) this tree-structure according to Peirce also
applies for consciousness (Primisense, Altersense, Medisense),
analysed by him up to the 3d level. This eternal tree-structure
should be possible to apply to all things that underly the
categories, otherwise the categories would not be categorical, and
thus not categories, I think. Best, Helmut 25. April 2020 um
02:51 Uhr
"Jon Alan Schmidt"
wrote: Robert, List: To clarify, I agree with what you say below
and did not mean to imply otherwise. I sincerely appreciate your
scholarship, even though we have reached some different conclusions
when it comes to the details. Also, the "moral injunction" with
which I concluded was not based on anyone's authority, just Peirce's
own words as quoted. Thanks, Jon S. On Fri, Apr 24, 2020 at
4:49 AM robert marty wrote: Jon, List :
Peirce asks himself questions and only questions to know which
trichotomies of which virtual or abstract thought objects (ie the Ai
of my protosigns) he could choose to place them in the 10 places. At
this moment they are trichotomies independentes of any
determination between these objects. There are actually 59049. It's
enough to impress Lady Welby and William James!
But once this choice is made we would obviously fall back on the
usual 66 classes.
This is not the first time he has evaluated his task:
Peirce: CP 5.488 Cross-Ref:†† 488. I here owe my patient reader
a confession. It is that when I said that those signs that have a
logical interpretant are either general or closely connected with
generals, this was not a scientific result, but only a strong
impression due to a life-long study of the nature of signs. My excuse
for not answering the question scientifically is that I am, as far as
I know, a pioneer, or rather a backwoodsman, in the work of clearing
and opening up what I call semiotic, that is, the doctrine of the
essential nature and fundamental varieties of possible semiosis; and
I find the field too vast, the labor too great, for a first-comer. I
am, accordingly, obliged to confine myself to the most important
questions. The questions of the same particular type as the one I
answer on the basis of an impression, which are of about the same
importance, exceed four hundred in number; and they are all delicate
and difficult, each requiring much search and much caution. At the
same time, they are very far from being among the most important of
the questions of semiotic. Even if my answer is not exactly correct,
it can lead to no great misconception as to the nature of the logical
interpretant. There is my apology, such as it may be deemed." (dated
v.1936)
400 is much less than 59049!
However, anyone can declare themselves an explorer today, this is
the condition of any free search. As far as I am concerned, I
constantly control that my explorations stick to Peirce's fundamental
writings, paragraph by paragraph, word by word.
You end with a moral injunction based on the authority of John Sowa:
"That is why I insist on faithfulness to Peirce's own writings when
employing his terminology and seeking to apply his ideas today.
Otherwise, we do not actually "build on and extend his work," but
rather create something new of our own invention and wrongly
attribute it to him."
I wonder who it can apply to and I don't feel concerned. On the
other hand, I fear that there is still much to clear in the forest
and that there is not yet time to plant trees on the freed parts won.
Le ven. 24 avr. 2020 à 04:15, Jon Alan Schmidt a écrit :
Robert, List: I agree that pursuing a tree structure effectively
abandons the quest for exactly 66 classes of signs, since that number
depends directly on a linear arrangement of the ten trichotomies.
Perhaps that is why Peirce made the following remarks in draft
letters to Lady Welby and William James, respectively. CSP: On
these considerations I base a recognition of ten respects in which
Signs may be divided. I do not say that these divisions are enough.
But since every one of them turns out to be a trichotomy, it follows
that in order to decide what classes of Signs result from them, I
have 3^10, or 59,049, difficult questions to carefully consider; and
therefore I will not undertake to carry my systematical division of
Signs any farther, but will leave that for future explorers. (EP
2:482, 1908 Dec 24-28) CSP: I might have drawn more than ten
distinctions; but these ten exhibit all the distinctions that are
generally required in logic; and since investigation of these
involved my consideration,--virtually at least,--of 59,049 questions,
still leaving me on the portico of logic, I thought it wise to stop
with these. (EP 2:501, 1909 Dec 25) Note that he wrote both of
these passages after his famous statement that "instead of making
59,049 classes, these will only come to 66" (EP 2:481, 1908 Dec 23).
Perhaps he was already reconsidering that assessment a couple of days
later, resulting in the first quote, while the second one comes a few
weeks after the Logic Notebook entry in which he sketched out the
hierarchical approach. In any case, we are now among the "future
explorers" for whom Peirce left various follow-up tasks to undertake,
including further investigation of alternatives for a "systematical
division of Signs." As John Sowa quoted him earlier today, "One
generation collects premises in order that a distant generation may
discover what they mean" (CP 7.87, 1902); but if we get the
premisses wrong, then the conclusions that we derive from them will
also be wrong. That is why I insist on faithfulness to Peirce's own
writings when employing his terminology and seeking to apply his
ideas today. Otherwise, we do not actually "build on and extend his
work," but rather create something new of our own invention and
wrongly attribute it to him. Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt -
Olathe, Kansas, USA Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher,
Lutheran Layman www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt [3] -
twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt [4] On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at
12:02 PM robert marty wrote: "The designations here are the same
as above, although the reference is to a longer entry in the Logic
Notebook written a few days later. As Bellucci summarizes, "the ten
trichotomies are arranged in a tree-structure, not as a linear
succession," but "Peirce never managed to apply to his tenfold
taxonomy of signs the new step-by-step method." Bellucci does not
attempt to do so himself; and as far as I know, no one else has tried
yet either." If you put a tree structure on the ten trichotomies
you can say probably goodbye to the 66 classes of signs which are
coextensive with a linear series of successive determinations. what
will you do if you finish by a fork ? Exemple with a final fork :
A1--> A2--> A3--> A4--> A5-->A6-->A7 -->A8
|
V A9
|
V
A10 you have in fact 2different suites of 8 objects :
A1--> A2--> A3--> A4--> A5-->A6-->A7 -->A8 A1--> A2--> A3-->
A4--> A5-->A6-->A9-->A10 the number of classes of signs obtained is
[(9*10)/2]*2=90 it is easy to see that the cases with equal
branches give the following numbers of classes according to the
length n of the common core: n=2, 56 ; n=4 , 72 ; n=6 , 90; n=8,
110 but maybe you see things differently ?
----------------------------- 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 [6] .
----------------------------- 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 [7] .
Links:
------
[1]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'[email protected]\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
[2]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'[email protected]\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
[3] http://www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt
[4] http://twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
[5]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'[email protected]\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
[6] http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm
[7] 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 .
