Aw: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Categories and Speculative Grammar Revisited (was Essay about categories and logical presuppositions)

Tue, 12 May 2020 11:05:14 -0700

Edwina, List,
 
yes, I will think of some examples. Before I know, whether what I wrote is correct, I give the example about the dicentic indexical legisign and its involutional and determinational consequences according to Peirce´s examples:
 
A dicentic indexical legisign is for instance "A street cry (identifying the individual by tone, theme)". It involves a dicentic indexical sinsign, for instance "a weathercock, photograph". Both identify something, the wind direction, or the depicted things. so check, identification is involved. Involution is a necessitant.
 
The object (index) may, apart from the said dicentic indexical sinsign, also determine a rhematic indexical sinsign, for instance a "spontaneous cry". Determination is a possibility. If the "street cry" happens in a quiet street, it will be assigned for a spontaneous cry. But if it happens in a carnival-situation, where everybody is yelling, its cry-property will not be detected, but only the said identificational property, determination possibility not carried out.
 
But if it happens in a quiet street, and is taken for a cry, so, if the determination towards a rhematical indexical sinsign takes place, then the latter involves a rhematic iconic qualisign, for instance "a feeling of red". In this case, as it is a cry, it is a feeling of alert.
 
Does it fit, or did I make it fit?
 
Best,
 
Helmut
 
 
 
 
 12. Mai 2020 um 17:17 Uhr
 "Edwina Taborsky" <tabor...@primus.ca>
wrote:

Helmut - I think it would be helpful to provide a real life example! That is - semiosis has to move beyond words and yes, beyond the delights of tables and formulae -  and into the real world. How do these 'signs' actually function in the real world?

Edwina

 

On Tue 12/05/20 11:09 AM , "Helmut Raulien" h.raul...@gmx.de sent:

Jon, List,
 
Thank you! I have drawn (see attachment)  three tables about three trichotomies/ ten classes. One is the known signs table (valency), the others are about determination and involution. What to do with them? My idea is for example
 
(only pay attention, if it is not all false): (:
 
You can look at the valency table, and choose a dicentic indexical legisign. Then you can see, which else signs this object (index) may determine in the determination table: index-sinsign-dicent, index-sinsign-rheme, and index-qualisign-rheme. The latter does not exist in the valency table. So there may be determined (is determination a possibility?) except from the original sign (dicentic indexical legisign) also a rhematic indexical sinsign, and a dicentic indexical sinsign. In fact you don´t need the determination table for this: You just can look in the valency table, which signs pass the index.
 
In the involution table, you can look up, which signs are involved in the original sign: Dicent-index-sinsign, dicent-index-qualisign, dicent-icon-qualisign. But of these combinations, in the valency table only the dicentic indexical sinsign exists, so only this is involved. In fact, for this too, you donot need the involution table. You just go straight to the left from the dicent in the valency table.
 
Next you can look which signs are involved by the possibly determined other signs: Go in the valency table to the left from the rheme: Rhematic iconical qualisign. And from the dicent: Dicentic indexical sinsign, which we already have.
 
So, with the valency table you can look, which signs a sign involves, which other signs may be determined by the object, and which signs they would involve. The determination and involution tables are not necessary therefor, they merely are for explanation.
 
I have assumed, that involution is a triadic relation. If not, so if also the object alone involves, then all mentioned signs (rhematic iconical qualisign too)  are involved not possibly, but necessarily.
 
Best,
 
Helmut
12. Mai 2020 um 03:20 Uhr
 "Jon Alan Schmidt"
wrote:
Helmut, List:
 
I am not sure that "mode of composition" is the right way to characterize the basis of the arrangement below (EP 2:482-483, 1908), but what I notice now is that it conforms to Gary R.'s vector of order (1ns→2ns→3ns) at all three levels--first the correlate itself (S=1, O=2, I=3), then the nature of its relation to the sign (immediate/possible=1, dynamical//actual=2, final/necessary=3), and then the valency of that relation (monadic=1, dyadic=2, triadic=3).
 
1.1.1 - Mode of Apprehension of the Sign
2.1.1 - Mode of Presentation of the Immediate Object
2.2.1 - Mode of Being of the Dynamical Object
2.2.2 - Dyadic Relation of the Dynamical Object and Sign
3.1.1 - Mode of Presentation of the Immediate Interpretant
3.2.1 - Mode of Being of the Dynamical Interpretant
3.2.2 - Dyadic Relation of the Sign and Dynamical Interpretant
3.3.1 - Purpose of the Final Interpretant
3.3.2 - Dyadic Relation of the Sign and Final Interpretant
3.3.3 - Triadic Relation of the Dynamical Object, Sign, and Final Interpretant
 

 

By contrast, my proposed logical order for sign classification conforms to different vectors at the different levels--first determination (2ns→1ns→3ns) for the correlates, then order (1ns→2ns→3ns) for the valencies, and then analysis or involution (3ns→2ns→1ns) for the relations.  The only deviation from this scheme is the placement of Od-S, which reflects the principle that a division for a relation must come after all divisions for the correlates that it involves/presupposes.
 
2.2.1 - Mode of Being of the Dynamical Object
 
2.1.1 - Mode of Presentation of the Immediate Object
 
1.1.1 - Mode of Apprehension of the Sign
2.2.2 - Dyadic Relation of the Dynamical Object and Sign
3.3.1 - Purpose of the Final Interpretant
 
3.2.1 - Mode of Being of the Dynamical Interpretant
 
3.1.1 - Mode of Presentation of the Immediate Interpretant
3.3.2 - Dyadic Relation of the Sign and Final Interpretant
 
3.2.2 - Dyadic Relation of the Sign and Dynamical Interpretant
3.3.3 - Triadic Relation of the Dynamical Object, Sign, and Final Interpretant
 
However, I wish to reiterate that my own evolving speculative grammar does not apply the rule of determination to the ten trichotomies in this sequence to obtain 66 classes of signs.  I am still tinkering with the details, but right now it makes more sense to me to begin with 3.3.2 as term/proposition/argument and then apply different trichotomies in different ways to each of these three basic classes.  For example, an indexical term such as a line of identity in existential graphs (indefinite), a spontaneous cry (singular), or a demonstrative pronoun (general) is always a concretive designative, requiring present collateral observation to identify the individual thing that it denotes.  On the other hand, a symbolic term such as "beauty" (monadic), "killing" (dyadic), or "giving" (triadic)--i.e., the label for a spot in existential graphs--is always an abstractive descriptive, requiring past collateral experience to identify the quality or relation that it denotes.
 
 
Regards,
 
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman
On Sun, May 10, 2020 at 11:35 AM Helmut Raulien <h.raul...@gmx.de> wrote:
Correction: "mode of determination like in "O-S-I".
List,
 
as the basis for Peitce´s 66 sign classes are these trichotomies:
 
1st, According to the Mode of Apprehension of the Sign itself,
2nd, According to the Mode of Presentation of the Immediate Object,
3rd, According to the Mode of Being of the Dynamical Object,
4th, According to the Relation of the Sign to its Dynamical Object,
5th, According to the Mode of Presentation of the Immediate Interpretant,
6th, According to the Mode of Being of the Dynamical Interpretant,
7th, According to the Relation of the Sign to the Dynamical Interpretant,
8th, According to the Nature of the Normal Interpretant,
9th, According to the Relation of the Sign to the Normal Interpretant,
10th, According to the Triadic Relation of the Sign to its Dynamical Object and
to its Normal Interpretant.
(L463: 134, 150, EP2: 482-483)
 
,and Priscilla Borges´ order is different, it starts with the dynamical object.
my assumption is, that Peirce´s sequence works due to the mode of composition, and Priscilla Borges´ sequence works due to the mode of determination. Is that correct?
 
With "due to the mode of composition" I mean the categorial sequence 1-2-3, like, with three trichotomies "S-O-I", and with "due to the mode of determination" I mean the order in which one element determines the other, like in "D-S-O".
 
If "mode of composition" is not the best term, what would you (anyone) call it?
 
Best,
Helmut
----------------------------- 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 .
-----------------------------
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 .

Reply via email to