Jon, List,
Thank you, Jon! I do have to say, that have had a concept of composition, of which Robert and Jon A.S. said it is not good, and it rather is all about determination and correlates. The concept of composition was, that a secondness would consist of two, and a thirdness of three parts, and this would go on eternally. Like, for example, a dynamic object (2.2.) consists of (2.2.1.) and (2.2.2.). I thought, this would make sense, as there might be identified two parts of the dynamic object: Its conceptuality outside the sign, and its ontologic part (outside too).
This way, there were 3, 6, 10, 15, 21, and so on parts. But the sign classes are not created this way, but by regarding determination of correlates, and this way there are 10, 28, 66 sign classes. How this is done, I have not yet understood. Does there exist a text for dummies?
By comparing AB-AC-BC with SS-SO-SI, I thougt to have had identified the nonexistent OI- relation for a "missing link". In spite of the catchiness of this term, I have the hunch, that this my stream of consideration might be based on not having understood the signtree and the determination issue, and I should work on this understanding before. But nevertheless I am very much looking forward to your answer and the subject of projective reduction in case of the sign!
Best,
Helmut
05. Mai 2020 um 21:40 Uhr
"Jon Awbrey" <jawb...@att.net>
wrote:
"Jon Awbrey" <jawb...@att.net>
wrote:
Helmut,
I've been trying to get back to your message of 4/12/2020
under the subject line "Categories and Speculative Grammar",
but I'll reply under Robert's original subject line as the
profusion of titles has been derailing my train of thought.
Some of the material you allude to below has gone missing
off the live web, and the fragments I can still find need
a bit of reformatting, so I'll go address those issues and
return to these questions as soon as I can.
Regards,
Jon
On 4/12/2020 3:21 PM, Helmut Raulien wrote:> Jon, All,
> I vaguely remember about irreducibility and reducibility something like, that
> a triad is compositionally (or another adverb with "c") not reducible to dyads,
> but projectively is, usually, the triad being ABC, to AB, BC, and AC. Now, in
> the case of sign it is different: The (projective or whatever) reducibility goes
> SS, SO, SI. What is missing here, would be OI, at least in Peircean theory,
> while in Ogden/Richard´s theory a relation between object and interptretant does
> exist. I think it is called "meaning", obviously being some ontological thing,
> while with Peirce a meaning without a sign´s partaking can not exist. I hope I
> have not gotten it totally wrong now.
> Anyway, I feel that a sign relation is a triadic relation, but a quite special
> kind of such. Its special way of being able to be projectively reduced to dyads
> opens ways of relations based on projection (or whatever) consisting of more
> than three: Six, to start with, but really as many as you will, as every
> secondness (DO, DI) may analytically be splitted into two more, and every
> thirdness (FI) into three more.
> Is that probably so?
> Best,
> Helmut
> *Gesendet:* Sonntag, 12. April 2020 um 15:36 Uhr
> *Von:* "Jon Awbrey" <jawb...@att.net>
> *An:* "Jon Alan Schmidt" <jonalanschm...@gmail.com>, "robert marty"
> <robert.mart...@gmail.com>, peirce-l@list.iupui.edu
> *Betreff:* [PEIRCE-L] Re: Categories and Speculative Grammar
> Jon, All ...
>
> Jon Alan Schmidt wrote:
>> Every proposition is *collective* and *copulative*; as I stated in a recent post
>> ( https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/arc/peirce-l/2020-03/msg00028.html ),
>> its dynamical object is "the entire universe" (CP 5.448n, EP 2:394, 1906),
>> which is "the totality of all real objects" (CP 5.152, EP 2:209, 1903),
>> while its immediate object is "the logical universe of discourse"
>> (CP 2.323, EP 2:283, 1903).
>
> Thanks for calling attention to this point. I'm occupied with another train
> of thought at the moment so I'll just stop to flag it for a later discussion.
> Incidentally, or synchronistically, lack of care in distinguishing different
> objects of the same signs, in particular, immediate and ultimate objects and
> their corresponding universes or object domains, has been the source of many
> misunderstandings in scattered discussions on Facebook of late.
>
> Another issue arising here has to do with the difference between the
> "dimension of a relation" and the "number of correlates". Signs may
> have any number of correlates in the object domain without requiring
> the dimension of the relevant sign relation to be greater than three.
> This is one of the consequences of "triadic relation irreducibility".
>
> Regards,
>
> Jon
>
I've been trying to get back to your message of 4/12/2020
under the subject line "Categories and Speculative Grammar",
but I'll reply under Robert's original subject line as the
profusion of titles has been derailing my train of thought.
Some of the material you allude to below has gone missing
off the live web, and the fragments I can still find need
a bit of reformatting, so I'll go address those issues and
return to these questions as soon as I can.
Regards,
Jon
On 4/12/2020 3:21 PM, Helmut Raulien wrote:> Jon, All,
> I vaguely remember about irreducibility and reducibility something like, that
> a triad is compositionally (or another adverb with "c") not reducible to dyads,
> but projectively is, usually, the triad being ABC, to AB, BC, and AC. Now, in
> the case of sign it is different: The (projective or whatever) reducibility goes
> SS, SO, SI. What is missing here, would be OI, at least in Peircean theory,
> while in Ogden/Richard´s theory a relation between object and interptretant does
> exist. I think it is called "meaning", obviously being some ontological thing,
> while with Peirce a meaning without a sign´s partaking can not exist. I hope I
> have not gotten it totally wrong now.
> Anyway, I feel that a sign relation is a triadic relation, but a quite special
> kind of such. Its special way of being able to be projectively reduced to dyads
> opens ways of relations based on projection (or whatever) consisting of more
> than three: Six, to start with, but really as many as you will, as every
> secondness (DO, DI) may analytically be splitted into two more, and every
> thirdness (FI) into three more.
> Is that probably so?
> Best,
> Helmut
> *Gesendet:* Sonntag, 12. April 2020 um 15:36 Uhr
> *Von:* "Jon Awbrey" <jawb...@att.net>
> *An:* "Jon Alan Schmidt" <jonalanschm...@gmail.com>, "robert marty"
> <robert.mart...@gmail.com>, peirce-l@list.iupui.edu
> *Betreff:* [PEIRCE-L] Re: Categories and Speculative Grammar
> Jon, All ...
>
> Jon Alan Schmidt wrote:
>> Every proposition is *collective* and *copulative*; as I stated in a recent post
>> ( https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/arc/peirce-l/2020-03/msg00028.html ),
>> its dynamical object is "the entire universe" (CP 5.448n, EP 2:394, 1906),
>> which is "the totality of all real objects" (CP 5.152, EP 2:209, 1903),
>> while its immediate object is "the logical universe of discourse"
>> (CP 2.323, EP 2:283, 1903).
>
> Thanks for calling attention to this point. I'm occupied with another train
> of thought at the moment so I'll just stop to flag it for a later discussion.
> Incidentally, or synchronistically, lack of care in distinguishing different
> objects of the same signs, in particular, immediate and ultimate objects and
> their corresponding universes or object domains, has been the source of many
> misunderstandings in scattered discussions on Facebook of late.
>
> Another issue arising here has to do with the difference between the
> "dimension of a relation" and the "number of correlates". Signs may
> have any number of correlates in the object domain without requiring
> the dimension of the relevant sign relation to be greater than three.
> This is one of the consequences of "triadic relation irreducibility".
>
> Regards,
>
> Jon
>
----------------------------- 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 .
