don't worry ... I need a little time to give you the clearest possible answer (which assumes I have an answer) ... Regards, Robert Marty
Le sam. 25 avr. 2020 à 20:42, Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca> a écrit : > 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" h.raul...@gmx.de 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 <robert.mart...@gmail.com> > 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 <jonalanschm...@gmail.com> >> 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 - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt >>> >>> On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 12:02 PM robert marty <robert.mart...@gmail.com> >>> 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 peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not > to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu 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 peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to > PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu 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 peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
