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.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 RichmondPhilosophy and Critical ThinkingCommunication StudiesLaGuardia College of the City University of New York
Virus-free. www.avg.com On Sat, Apr 25, 2020 at 2:42 PM Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> 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] sent:Supplement: Please click on "full view" or synonym, otherwise the table does not work.List,----------------------------- 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 .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 characters1 (3) 12 (1);(2);(3) 33 (1.1); (2.1),(2.2); (3.1).(3.2),(3.3) 64 (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) 10The 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,Helmut25. April 2020 um 02:51 Uhr
"Jon Alan Schmidt"
wrote:----------------------------- 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 .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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> 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, USAProfessional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran LaymanOn Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 12:02 PM robert marty <[email protected]> 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 -->A8VA9|VA10you have in fact 2different suites of 8 objects :A1--> A2--> A3--> A4--> A5-->A6-->A7 -->A8A1--> A2--> A3--> A4--> A5-->A6-->A9-->A10the number of classes of signs obtained is [(9*10)/2]*2=90it 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, 110but maybe you see things differently ?
Virus-free. www.avg.com
----------------------------- 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 .
----------------------------- 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 .
