BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}Gary R - I'll continue with my comments on your post...these might
be haphazard comments..as I read through
1] Again- I have trouble with accepting your position that the three
'elements' of the triadic sign: are 'in' a particular categorical
mode; namely; the representamen/sign in the mode of 1ns, the object
in 2ns, the interpretant in 3ns.
As Peirce notes: "Every triadic relationship involves three dyadic
relationships and three monadic characters" 6.331. My view is that
the modal categories refer to the relationships not the monadic
characters. And "Signs...are triadic; since a sign denotes a subject,
and signifies a form of fact, which latter it brings into connextion
with the former" 6.344.
First - I happen to reject the triangle as the image of the Peircean
triad. I prefer the 'umbrella spokes (1.347) for the reason that I see
the Peircean semiosis as a dynamic, active, ever-interactive and
expanding network, where there is no such thing as a 'static triad'
but instead, our world consists of a constantly interactive
'mind-as-matter' where triads form as expressions of this
'mind-as-matter within interactions with other triads...and the
'elements' in these triads themselves take on different functions in
these interactions. A DI [dynamic interpretant] can be a DO [dynamic
object] in another interaction.
This means that at one second, a Dynamic Interpretant can function
as such; and yet, can be connecting with another triad in a new
identity as a Dynamic Object.
And - the agenda is to enable expansion of complexity, adaptation,
evolution. I think the closed triangle doesn't 'imagize' this reality
as well as the spokes'. But that's a matter of choice....
2] I don't see how the modal categories, which refer to the
form/nature/organization of the relations between the three
'elements/monads' of the triad can be used to identity the/monads
themselves. That's a key 'sticking point' to my understanding of your
analysis.
That is - I don't see that the 'three universes of experience' are
the same as the 'three modal categories'.
3] Therefore - I don't see how the mediative process of the
representamen/sign is 'basically' in a categorical mode of 1ns- when
its function as mediation is to 'establish connections', to
transform input data into 'output meaning' so to speak. Firstness has
no capacity to do this.
I think that your concept that Firstness is comparable to Platonic
Forms/Ideas is different from Peirce's description of Firstness.
--which is 'without reference to anything else'. The Platonic Forms
to my understanding are abstract while Peircean Firstness is a
'positive', ie, not an intellectual experience. Now, if we understand
the first 'universe of experience to consist of "all mere Ideas, those
airy nothings to which the mind of poet, pure mathematician, or
another might give local habitation...Their very airy-nothingness....
etc 6.455. But this experience, to me, is a result of a semiosic
triad; it's within the realm of the Interpretants - and is not the
same as the modal category of Firstness, which is ' immediate
consciousness' 1.361, or spontaneity or chance or 'freedom ..a
'quality of feeling' 5.66, 'total feeling 1.531.
4] Then - since I see the triad as in constant movement; with a DI
becoming a DO; with the mediation itself constantly changing - then,
I don't understand how one can define the triad's categorical nature
so firmly! My view of the categories is that they refer only to
interactions between 'elements' ; not to the elements themselves.
5] I do, however, understand your argument in your paper - where you
view the 'universal categories' as somehow different in nature from
the 'existential categories'. I agree with this difference - but it
seems to me that you merge the two...That is, I see the universes as
referring to my experience of a whole triad; not to just one of the
monadic elements of the triad.
That's where it's at - at the moment. We are still apart in our
views [no problem with that, of course].
Edwina
On Sat 25/04/20 5:07 PM , Gary Richmond [email protected]
sent:
Helmut, Edwina, List,
Helmut asked: (is it agreed now, that sign is 1ns, object 2ns, and
interpretant 3ns?)
And Edwina responded:
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 and I have disagreed on this matter
forever, it would seem. I see things very differently than she does.
Consider the chart below beginning by noting its three diagrams: Sign
Elements at the top left; 9-adic Sign Relations at the bottom left;
10-adic Classification of Signs being the entire right hand side of
the chart.
https://arisbe.sitehost.iu.edu/menu/library/aboutcsp/richmond/trikonic.htm
[1]
Each of these three involves, firstly, trikons arranged categorially
such that 1ns is represented at the top of each triangle, 2ns at the
bottom of each, and 3ns to the right.
SIGN ELEMENTS:
The trikon diagram at the top left of the chart abstracts only the
three 'elements' of a sign and can be read thusly: the sign itself is
a 1ns, the object is 2ns, the interpretant is 3ns.
[Here, I believe, lies the basis of Edwina's and my disagreement.
For when we consider the 10 Classes of Signs below, in this
analysis, each and every one of them will involve a Sign as 1ns, an
Object as 2ns and an Interpretant as 3ns)].
SIGN RELATIONS:
SIGN: Now if one then looks at the trikon diagram on the bottom left
one sees that each of these just considered -- viz.,
sign/object/interpretant -- can be tricategorially analyzed such that
for the Sign itself: qualsign = 1ns, sinsign = 2ns, legisign = 3ns.
So one observes that while the Sign itself is always a 1ns at this
level of abstract analysis, its categorial 'modes' can be in any of
the three.
OBJECT: Moving to the bottom of the diagram, similarly, the Object
can famously be tricategorially analyzed: icon = 1ns, index = 2ns,
symbol =3ns; yet qua Object it is always 2ns .
INTERPRETANT: So also for the Interpretant sign: rheme (term, or
better, propositional function) = 1ns, dicisign (proposition) = 2ns,
argument = 3ns; yet qua Interpretant it is always 3ns.
CLASSIFICATION OF SIGNS:
Finally, turning to the right portion of the entire diagram, here
the famous Classification into 10 classes is trikonically
represented. Here one finds that each of the 10 classes is also
tricategorially analyzed based on the division of 9 (3 x 3) just
given (bottom left of the chart).
In verbally presenting each of the 10 classes at CP 2.254 - 264, in
order to highlight the notion that the interpretant involves the
object* and the object involves the sign itself, so beginning at the
interpretant as Peirce does in the CP passages just noted, commencing
at the interpretent, one moves through the object, to the sign itself.
So, for simple example, the 4th sign of the 10 classes (bottom left in
that diagram) is called by Peirce a Dicent(ic) (2ns) Indexical (2ns)
Sinsign (2ns), and the example he gives is a weathercock (I trust
that I don't have to spell out its dicentic, indexical, sinsignific
characters: see, CP 2.257). *More accurately, one ought say that the
Interpretant involves both the Object and the Sign itself.
This kind of involutional analysis holds for each and every Sign
Class of the 10. However, it ought to be obvious that the
Classification of Signs (and, so, every element in the entire chart
which, btw, is itself trikonic) is highly abstracted.
So, for example, several signs cannot occur on their own but must be
a part, so to speak, of other signs. For prime example, the very first
sign (top left), the Qualisign (and one reads in CP 2.254 - 264 why
some signs can be abbreviated, so that there is no need to refer to a
'rhematic iconic qualisign'-- simply 'Qualisign' will do) never
appears alone, can not appear alone, and yet can be analyzed as a
Sign. (So 'red' as a qualisign occurs within some thing or idea which
involves redness.)
[NB: This just given is a very different analysis than the one
Edwina offers in the second passage quoted above: "How about a Sign
in 1-1-1, a rhematic iconic qualisgin, where all three nodes are in a
mode of 1ns?"]
But again, the Classification of Signs is just that, an abstract
classification and is not meant to represent semeiosis at all (contra
Edwina, also in her second comment quoted at the top). Indeed, when
semeiosis is considered, matters can become infinitely more complex.
One need only note by way of abstract example, that for semeiosis
Peirce analyzes 2 objects (immediate and dynamic) and at least 3
interpretants.
Best,
Gary R
"TIME IS NOT A RENEWABLE RESOURCE." GNOX
Gary Richmond
Philosophy and Critical ThinkingCommunication StudiesLaGuardia
College of the City University of New York
[2]
Virus-free. www.avg.com
On Sat, Apr 25, 2020 at 2:42 PM Edwina Taborsky wrote:
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] [4]
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 [5] -
twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt [6] 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] [7] . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send
a message not to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] [8] with the line
"UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm [9] .
----------------------------- 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] [10] . To UNSUBSCRIBE,
send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] [11] with
the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm [12] .
[13]
Virus-free. www.avg.com
Links:
------
[1]
https://arisbe.sitehost.iu.edu/menu/library/aboutcsp/richmond/trikonic.htm
[2]
http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail
[3]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'[email protected]\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
[4]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'[email protected]\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
[5] http://www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt
[6] http://twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
[7]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'[email protected]\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
[8]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'[email protected]\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
[9] http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm
[10]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'[email protected]\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
[11]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'[email protected]\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
[12] http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm
[13]
http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail
-----------------------------
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 .
