Dear Jon, Edwina, and list. Thank you for your comments and questions. I am writing an explanation of the class #5 that also explains a little bit of how I see the expanded system functioning. I will send it to the list soon.
Meanwhile, uploaded the images that didn't appear in the message on my drive, so you can access them. https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1uOeYN-OVCdBttajsRRNYmsi5KTLr0V1K?usp=sharing Priscila Em qui., 30 de abr. de 2020 às 22:01, Jon Alan Schmidt < [email protected]> escreveu: > 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 .
