List, Jon:
In response to your post of August 4, 2021(copied below) I suggest that you may
be misreading the meaning of the sentence that you cited.
In particular, the three terms are not general linguistic propositional terms
derived from historical Greek or Latin roots, but all three terms are composed
terms coined by CSP for his specific usage as the base for semiosis. Thus, if
the nine terms of the trichotomy are indeed a set of connected meanings such
that a logical proposition is formed, then a coherent correspondence to
pragmatic realism is necessarily asserted.
The meaning of the sentence in question is constrained to a small fraction of
the totality of scientific epistemology and relates specifically to the syntax
and semantics of experience of a sinsign, that is, perceptions of natural
processes (in the sense of Whitehead.)
The logic CSP asserts is composed from step-by-step paths among the nine terms
and their pragmatic interconnectedness (in the sense of Wittgenstein). As a
professional chemist, CSP grounded these terms in mathematical calculations
that generate molecular structures from atomic formula and molecular formula
and the grammars of combinatorics that relate atomic sentences to molecular
sentences.
The pragmatic interconnectedness of sinsigns, prior to the discovery of the
nuclear atom in 1912, was deciphered from “wet chemistry” methods that were
based on the mass of the legi-signs and the collections of quali-signs. The
assertions were composed from the meanings of any legi-signs under compositions
of chemical elements.
With regard to the “arrow” symbols, these are used in the sense of traditional
chemical usage. That is, the implication is obligatory with respect to the
parts of the wholes of the antecedent and consequent.
But, note that the traditional chemical arrow specifies a set of triadic
illations among attributes, diagrammatic identity, and formal semantics of
natural objects. In other words, quali-signs, sin-sign and legi-sign.
Yes, this is cyclic logic. This cyclic logic is necessitated by compositional
logic of part-whole illations and whole-part illations. A critical component
of the demonstration is CSP assertion that the the mapping from the icon to a
rhema is comparable to a chemical radical. (I do not have the book on graph
theory at hand but is occurs in the first few pages.)
I will not develop the multiple propositions necessary to develop the illations
between quali-signs, sin-signs and legsi-signs here. The logic follows from
the definitions of CSP and the obligatory logics atomic and molecular sentences
as applied to the semiotic attributes of chemical elements.
However, the references necessary to compose the propositions and the
grammatical compositions include the following quotes :
1905-12-20 | The Logic Notebook | MS [R] 339:267r
“Philosophy” has 2 principal meanings
The cream of the science, – synthetic or positive philosophy
Cenoscopy, the study of the experience already acquired.
"Next, passing to Class II, philosophy, whose business it is to find out all
that can be found out from those universal experiences which confront every man
in every waking hour of his life, must necessarily have its application in
every other science. For be this science of philosophy that is founded on those
universal phenomena as small as you please, as long as it amounts to anything
at all, it is evident that every special science ought to take that little into
account before it begins work with its microscope, or telescope, or whatever
special means of ascertaining truth it may be provided with.”
1896 [c.] | Lessons of the History of Science | CP 1.65
There are in science three fundamentally different kinds of reasoning,
Deduction (called by Aristotle {synagögé} or {anagögé}), Induction (Aristotle’s
and Plato’s {epagögé}) and Retroduction (Aristotle’s {apagögé}, but
misunderstood because of corrupt text, and as misunderstood usually translated
abduction). Besides these three, Analogy (Aristotle’s {paradeigma}) combines
the characters of Induction and Retroduction.
All that makes knowledge applicable comes to us viâ abduction.
"The first step of inference usually consists in bringing together certain
propositions which we believe to be true, but which, supposing the inference to
be a new one, we have hitherto not considered together, or not as united in the
same way. This step is called colligation. The compound assertion resulting
from colligation is a conjunctive proposition, that is, it is a proposition
with a composite icon, as well as usually with a composite index. Colligation
is a very important part of reasoning, calling for genius perhaps more than any
other part of the process. Many logicians refuse the name of reasoning to an
inferential act of which colligation forms no part. Such an inferential act
they call an immediate inference. This term may be accepted; but although
colligation certainly gives a higher intellectuality to inference, yet its
importance is exaggerated when it is represented to be of more account than the
conscious control of the operation. The latter ought to determine the title of
reasoning.”
1899-1900 [c.] | Notes on Topical Geometry | MS [R] 142:6
Symbols are of three classes: terms, which call attention to things or
quasi-things; propositions, which declare facts; and arguments, which profess
to enlighten us as to the rational connections of facts or possible facts.
1901-1902 [c.] | Definitions for Baldwin's Dictionary [R] | MS [R] 1147
An argument may be defined as a symbol which definitely and separately shows
what interpretant, or conclusion, it aims at.
1866 | Logic Chapter I | W 1:355
… the relation of a repraesentamen to its object (correlate) may be a real
relation and, then, either an agreement or a difference, or it may be an ideal
r[elati]on or one from which the reference to a correspondent (subject of
representation) cannot be prescinded by position. [—] In the second case, there
is a real difference of the repraesentamen from its object, that is to say not
a mere difference in quality but also a bringing of them together in nature; in
this case the representative character of the one will consist in constant
accompaniment by the other, so that it indicates the existence of the latter
without noting any characters of it. Such a representation may be termed an
index.
1903 | Syllabus: Nomenclature and Division of Triadic Relations, as far as they
are determined | EP 2:294
… a Qualisign is any quality in so far as it is a sign. Since a quality is
whatever it is positively in itself, a quality can only denote an object by
virtue of some common ingredient or similarity; so that a Qualisign is
necessarily an Icon. Further, since a quality is a mere logical possibility, it
can only be interpreted as a sign of essence, that is, as a Rheme.
1903 | Syllabus: Nomenclature and Division of Triadic Relations, as far as they
are determined | EP 2:291
A Sinsign (where the syllable sin is taken as meaning “being only once,” as in
single, simple, Latin semel, etc.) is an actual existent thing or event which
is a sign. It can only be so through its qualities; so that it involves a
qualisign, or rather, several qualisigns. But these qualisigns are of a
peculiar kind and only form a sign through being actually embodied.
1903 [c.] | P of L | MS [R] 800:4
…signs are divisible, first, according to their modes of being, as objects;
secondly, according to the modes of their references to their objects; thirdly,
according to the modes of their references to their interpretants. In the first
way of dividing them, signs are either qualisigns, or signs that are abstract
qualities (in a wide sense), or suisigns, signs that are essentially existent
as individual objects or events, or legisigns, signs that [are] general types,
laws, or habits.
1904 | Letters to Lady Welby | SS 32
As it is in itself, a sign is either of the nature of an appearance, when I
call it a qualisign; or secondly, it is an individual object or event, when I
call it a sinsign (the syllable sin being the first sillable [sic] of semel,
simul, singular, etc); or thirdly, it is of the nature of a general type, when
I call it a legisign.
The readiest characteristic test showing whether a sign is a Dicisign or not is
that a Dicisign is either true or false, but does not directly furnish reasons
for its being so. This shows that a Dicisign must profess to refer or relate to
something as having a real being independently of the representation of it as
such, and further that this reference or relation must not be shown as
rational, but must appear as a blind Secondness. But the only kind of sign
whose object is necessarily existent is the genuine Index. This Index might,
indeed, be a part of a Symbol; but in that case the relation would appear as
rational. Consequently a Dicisign necessarily represents itself to be a genuine
Index, and to be nothing more.
Cheers
Jerry
> On Aug 4, 2021, at 3:57 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Jerry C., List:
>
> No word games, just a simple request and a sincere question as I try to
> understand your claim as quoted. I am well aware of
> qualisign/sinsign/legisign as Peirce's 1903 division of all signs according
> to the nature of the sign itself, which he later changes to tone/token/type.
> I am asking what specific relation you are expressing with the arrows between
> them, and what specific passage(s) from Peirce's writings you can cite to
> support your interpretation.
>
> Thanks again,
>
> Jon S.
>
> On Wed, Aug 4, 2021 at 2:50 PM Jerry LR Chandler
> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
> Jon:
>
> The sentence you cite is merely the top row of CSP table of the trichotomy.
>
> If you wish to play word games, count me out.
>
> Cheers
> Jerry
>> On Aug 4, 2021, at 10:31 AM, Jon Alan Schmidt <[email protected]
>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>>
>> Jerry C., List:
>>
>> JLRC: CSP assertion of Quali-sign —> Sinsign —> Legi-sign forms the logical
>> and semantic grounding for the chemical sciences.
>>
>> Please provide an exact quotation for the particular "CSP assertion" that
>> you have in mind. What relation are the arrows from qualisign to sinsign and
>> from sinsign to legisign supposed to represent?
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
>> Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian
>> www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt
>> <http://www.linkedin.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt> - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
>> <http://twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt>
>> On Wed, Aug 4, 2021 at 9:35 AM Jerry LR Chandler
>> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>> Helmut:
>>
>> As a footnote to the exceedingly curious developments of scientific
>> terminologies, I would note that:
>>
>> 1. Robert Rosen denied the role of chemical emergence in his category-theory
>> based book, Life Itself.
>> 2. The Scandia school of Biosemiotics adopts the evolutionary theory while
>> rejecting the chemical theory.
>> 3. The formal logic advocates ignore emergence and evolution but
>> nevertheless assert the implication sign as symbolic anticipation!.
>>
>> CSP assertion of Quali-sign —> Sinsign —> Legi-sign forms the logical and
>> semantic grounding for the chemical sciences.
>> Consequently, his syntactical trichotomy for the relative logics of the
>> chemical table of elements also grounds the abstractions for the numerical
>> logics of atomic and molecular sentences.
>>
>> Thus, by vague conjecture, CSP was motivated to develop the concept of the
>> phanoscopy differs from the Husserl’s notion of phenomenology by the modal
>> logics of conscious feelings.
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>> Jerry
> _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
> ► 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 UNSUBSCRIBE PEIRCE-L in the SUBJECT LINE of the message and nothing in
> the body. More at https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/help/user-signoff.html .
> ► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary Richmond; and
> co-managed by him and Ben Udell.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
► 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 UNSUBSCRIBE PEIRCE-L in the SUBJECT LINE of the message and nothing in the
body. More at https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/help/user-signoff.html .
► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary Richmond; and
co-managed by him and Ben Udell.
