Priscila, List: Welcome! Unfortunately, none of the graphics came through in your post; typically we have to include those as attached files, which makes it difficult to reference so many of them within the text of a message.
I suspect that "tree structure" has become a misnomer for this thread by now. We were originally contrasting the familiar *linear* ordering of three, six, or ten trichotomies to obtain 10, 28, or 66 sign classes with the *hierarchical *approach that Peirce suggested in a late 1909 Logic Notebook entry, as discussed by Francesco Bellucci at the end of chapter 8 in *Peirce's Speculative Grammar: Logic as Semiotics*. I appreciate the work that you have done over the years on the ten trichotomies and 66 sign classes, especially the visualizations, although I disagree about the proper logical sequence of the fifth through ninth divisions. For reasons that I have explained recently on the List, I believe that the destinate and explicit interpretants (EP 2:481, 1908) correspond respectively to the final and immediate interpretants, rather than the other way around; that all three interpretant divisions come before both sign-interpretant relation divisions; and that the S-FI division comes before the S-DI division, as Peirce himself affirmed (CP 8.338, 1904). Even so, it is interesting to note that these adjustments do not affect the order of the five trichotomies for obtaining 21 sign classes as presented in your 2015 paper. Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt On Wed, Apr 29, 2020 at 7:08 PM Priscila Borges <[email protected]> wrote: > Dear Helmut, Robert and list, > > I've been following this topic on the tree-structure trying to understand > why a tree-structure would not lead to 66 sign classes. > > Robert said: > > "*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*." > > As you have seen, I've built a model for the system of 66 sign classes > based on a tree structure. In that visual model, a tree structure was > apllied to the set of 66 sign classes and not to each sign class. That is, > to build the system, I adopted an order for the trichotomies, as Peirce did > with the 3 tricotomies of the 10 sign classes, and with the 6 tricothomies > of the 28 sign classes. > > I do not undestand why should we not adopt a linear order for the > trichotomies. It seems to me that some order of determination between > trichotomies is fundamental to reach the classes of signs. > > This is true for the 10 sign classes, which can only be reached if we > follow the [S] > [S-O] > [S-I] order. > > When Peirce proposes the 28 sign classes he says (SS 84; EP2:481, 1908): > > "*It is evident that a Possible can determine nothing but a Possible; it > is equally so that a Necessitant can be determined by nothing but a > Necessitant. Hence it follows from the Definition of a Sign that since the > Dynamoid Object determines the Immediate Object,* > *which determines the Sign itself,* > *which determines the Destinate Interpretant,* > *which determines the Effective Interpretant,* > *which determines the Explicit Interpretant,* > *the six trichotomies, instead of determining 729 classes of signs, as > they would if they were independent, only yield 28 classes*" > > In the 66 sign classes, there is a letter to L. Welby from December 24, > 1908 (EP2:483-488), in which Peirce analyses the relation between two > trichotomies [S] and [IO]. He says: > > "*Before proceeding to the third trichotomy, let [us] inquire what > relations, if any, are found between the two that have been brought to > light. What I mean precisely by between these relations is whether or not > the three members of the first trichotomy, which we may for the moment > denote as 11, 12, 13, are or are not independent of the three members of > the second, which we may denote by 21, 22, 23; so that they form nine > classes, which if we use a dot to mean "which is," will be denoted by* > > 11-21 11-22 11-23 > 12-21 12-22 12-23 > 13-21 13-22 13-23 > > *The inquiry ought, one would expect, to be an easy one, since both > trichotomies depend on there being three Modes of Presence to the mind, > which we may term* > > *The Immediate,—The Direct,—The Familiar* > > *Mode of Presence.* > > *The difference between the two trichotomies is that the one refers to the > Presence to the Mind of the Sign and the other to that of the Immediate > Object. The Sign may have any Modality of Being, i.e. may belong to any one > of the three Universes; its Immediate Object must be in some sense, in > which the Sign need not be, Internal.*" (Peirce, 1908, EP2:483-488). > > It is interesting that he begins the letter presenting the [S] > > "*I. According to the mode of presentation of the sign itself* > > *Potisign / Actisign / Famisign*" > > and then he presents the [IO] > > "*II. According to the mode of presentation of the immediate object* > > *Descriptive / Designative / Copulant*" > > but his analyses on the relationship between these two tricotomies shows > that the Immediate Object precedes the Sign and not the contrary (Peirce, > 1908, EP2:483-488). > > The third trichotomy he presents in this letter is the [DO] > > "*III. According to the nature of the dynamic object* > > *Abstractive / Concretive / Collective*" > > And just after presenting it he says: > > *I was of the opinion that if the Dynamical Object be a mere Possible the > Immediate Object could only be of the same nature, while if the Immediate > Object were a Tendency or Habit then the Dynamical Object must be of the > same nature. Consequently an Abstractive must be a Mark, while a Type must > be a Collective, which shows how I conceived Abstractives and Collectives.*" > (Peirce, 1908, EP2:489) > > If the DO is a mere possible, then the IO is a mere possible. > > If the IO is a tendency, then the DO is a tendency. > > And here he gives a hint at the order of the trichotomies between the [DO] > and [IO]. If the Immediate Object is a tendency and if it preceded the > Dynamical object, there would be no restriction for the Dynamical Object to > be a tendency, it could be a possible, a fact, or a tendency. > > It is the same as saying that all Qualisigns are Icons and all Symbols are > Legisigns. > > And this is due to the relationship between the universal categories: > > “*Firstness is the mode of being of that which is such as it is, > positively and without reference to anything else. Secondness is the mode > of being of that which is such as it is, with respect to a second but > regardless of any third. Thirdness is the mode of being of that which is > such as it is, in bringing a second and third into relation to each other.*” > (CP 8.328 [1904]) > > It is based on that that I said, as Robert quoted: > > "*A relation of dependence is established between the three categories as > follows: firstness is independent of anything, secondness depends on > firstness, and thirdness depends on secondness and firstness.*" > > Robert, also, asked what is the parallelism that inspered the form of a > tree. Let me explain, then. > > When I created the Signtree visual model, I was inspired by some drawings, > specially the following one, which appears in SANDERS, GARY. Peirce's > Sixty-six Signs , Charles S. Peirce Society, Transactions, 6:1 > (1970:Winter): > > Also, by Peirce's scheme for the degenerated categories (EP2: 162, 1903): > > And some other drawings I found on Peirce's manuscripts such as: > > All these structures seem to derive from the tripod being repeated > recursively, which results in a tree-structure. The affinity between the > growth of the tree and the sign processes is quite obvious, since each > bifurcation of a branch results in a triadic structure. > > That's why I adopted the form of a tree to my visual model and called it > Signtree. Because I believe the tree-structure applied to the set of sign > classes evinces that they constitute an integrated system. The sign classes > should not be understood as pidgeon-holes to qualify signs. Peirce defines > semiotics as “the science of the necessary laws of thought” (Peirce c.1896: > CP 1.444). Peirce’s classes are not simply a set of categories to qualify > signs. They express a logical process for inquiry that makes clear the > growth of signs. And that is why I don't represent the classes of signs in > boxes separeted one from the other. Instead, I represent them as > bifurcating one from the other. This may not be evident on Peirce’s > threefold classification system, because in that case the process has only > three steps. It begins to appear in Peirce’s tenfold classification, which > brings up a process in ten steps. However, the growing process of the sign > only becomes explicit in Peirce’s extended system of sixty-six classes. > > The Signtree model can be used to express any type of class system > emphasizing characteristics that are not exclusive of the 66 classes’ > system, but are essential to Peirce’s semiotics. I've built visual models > as this one for all the systems of sign classes and even proposed one with > 21 classes. > > These I published in *The American Journal of Semiotics* 31.3–4 (2015), > 245–276. The paper is called "A System of 21 Classes of Signs as an > Instrument of Inquiry", its aim is not only to deduce the system of 21 > classes, but also to allow the reader to understand how each class > represents a step in a semiotic inquiry. With that in mind, I also provided > an example of how to proceed with a semiotic analysis using the system of > 21 classes. > > I have also published other papers where I apply the 66 sign classes shown > in the Signtree as an instrument of inquiry: > > - Borges, Priscila (2014). Experience and Cognition in Peirce’s > Semiotics. *The American Journal of Semiotics* 30.1–2, 1–26. > - Borges, Priscila (2019). Confidence through the semiotic process. > *Semiotica > Journal* 228. https://doi.org/10.1515/sem-2018-0083 [image: External] > <https://doi.org/10.1515/sem-2018-0083> > - Borges, Priscila (2020). A Complex System of Sign Classes for > complex Sign Systems. In JAPPY, Tony (ed.). *Bloomsbury Companion to > Contemporary Peircean Semiotics*. Bloomsbury Publishing. > > Best, > Priscila > >>
----------------------------- 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 .
