Jon Allan, List, John Sowa
Jon Allan, List, John Sowa I apply the principle of charity <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity> mentioned by John Sowa not long ago ... I like it … I also want it applied to me ... JAS > Unfortunately only the "valency" table is correct and relevant, since the second and third trichotomies of Peirce's 1903 taxonomy are not for the (dynamical) object and (final) interpretant as *correlates *(2.2.1 and 3.3.1), but rather for their dyadic *relations *with the sign (2.2.2 and 3.3.2). Hence the logical order of determination is S → Od-S → S-If, which we use to obtain the familiar ten classes of signs. RM > First, you would have to specify what definition of 1903 you were referring to, since that year there was a product 11 according to my research; but it doesn't matter very much. What is important is the last sentence in which I completely reject the logical order and therefore at least as much the use of the term "familiar" by which you introduce the idea that what you are saying is what everyone says and even that is what Peirce would say. I'd rather have seen "personal" instead. That is why I will use the word "aberration" about this sentence and of course I am arguing. The original sin (forgive me the metaphor) is here*:* *S → Od-S* : we immediately see a problem because we see twice S and then when we read we see that S *determines his own relationship with Od * ... If the line you put between Od and S (don't know what it represents) is a determination what is the common rule, then you say that S determines his determination… it is therefore a recursive definition of the sign which is a great novelty whose empirical basis is not seen… then I will not accuse you of blocking the path of research as is done almost daily on this list but only of sitting by the side of the road in 1903. Indeed from 1905 it is clear in 20 definitions that O determines S and even (def 30 below, which can be found at number 66 among n.d ) that O(=B) is purely active in its relationship with S (=A). Moreover, these texts are interesting because they show that for Peirce the sign S(=A) is active-passive: active in its relation with the interpreter (C) and passive in its relation with the object (B). So there's no reason to part with OàSàI but you can always get up and take a bifurcation. *"30 - 1905 - SS p.192-3. Letter to Lady Welby (Draft) presumably July 1905 . So then anything (generally in a mathematical sense) is a priman (not a priman element generally) and we might define a sign as follows: A "sign" is anything, A, which, (1) in addition to other characters of its own, (2) stands in a dyadic relation Þ, to a purely active correlate, B, (3) and is also in a triadic relation to B for a purely passive correlate, C, this triadic relation being such as to determine C to be in a dyadic relation, µ, to B, the relation µ corresponding in a recognized way to the relation Þ."* JAS > Note that this has nothing whatsoever to do with which classes of signs can be *determined *(in a different sense) by other signs. In fact, only a symbolic sign can determine a further sign as its dynamical interpretant. An indexical sign can only produce an exertion or a feeling, and an iconic sign can only produce a feeling. RM > Again, there's a language problem: classes of signs that are defined with O,S and I could be determined by simple signs that you don't specify ? It's inconsistent ... For the rest I have nothing to say since I write has pretty much the same for 30 years. Le mer. 13 mai 2020 à 03:10, Jon Alan Schmidt <[email protected]> a écrit : > Helmut, List: > > Unfortunately only the "valency" table is correct and relevant, since the > second and third trichotomies of Peirce's 1903 taxonomy are not for the > (dynamical) object and (final) interpretant as *correlates *(2.2.1 and > 3.3.1), but rather for their dyadic *relations *with the sign (2.2.2 and > 3.3.2). Hence the logical order of determination is S → Od-S → S-If, which > we use to obtain the familiar ten classes of signs. > > Note that this has nothing whatsoever to do with which classes of signs > can be *determined *(in a different sense) by other signs. In fact, only > a symbolic sign can determine a further sign as its dynamical > interpretant. An indexical sign can only produce an exertion or a feeling, > and an iconic sign can only produce a feeling. > > It also has nothing whatsoever to do with which classes of signs are *involved > *in other signs. Every *actual *replica of a legisign is a sinsign that > possesses qualisigns. Every symbolic sign involves indexical and iconic > signs, and every indexical sign involves iconic signs. Every argument > involves dicisigns and rhemes, and every dicisign involves rhemes. > > Peirce indeed classifies a street cry as a dicent indexical *legisign*. > The dicent indexical *sinsign *that is its replica is the *actual *street > cry that someone utters on a particular occasion. It in turn involves > *rhematic* indexical sinsigns that are replicas of rhematic indexical > legisigns, as well as *iconic *sinsigns that are replicas of iconic > legisigns. It also embodies qualisigns such as the volume, tone, and > inflection of the utterer's voice. > > As a dicisign, the street cry's final interpretant is a habit of > conduct--buying whatever the utterer is selling. As an indexical sinsign, > the individual replica's dynamical interpretant is typically an > exertion--drawing someone's attention. In some cases, this results in the > further exertion of making a purchase, but in others it merely produces a > feeling--such as annoyance in someone who is not interested. > > Regards, > > Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA > Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman > www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt > > On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 1:04 PM Helmut Raulien <[email protected]> wrote: > >> 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" <[email protected]> >> 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" [email protected] 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 >> >>
----------------------------- 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 .
