Jon, List I am familiar with this type of confusion, and it is not because it has been in Wikipedia for 15 years that it is validated. It existed in my immediate environment that I finally break. I will first make some remarks and then ask you a question.
The remark: you spend without justification six different grammatical forms allowing six different predicates to describe the same phaneron by linking the letters A, B, C, in six ways to the six purely formal combinations of the three letters S, O, and I. For each of the six combinations, which predicate? A Y diagram with three free ends where the letters S, O, I circulate might be the answer? (I can't think of any other, but you tell me...) But then you spend from the six different ways given by Pierce to express a single phaneron grammatically = the fact that an object in the world has changed ownership (in all six grammatical cases, it is the same fact that has happened in the real world) to the semiotic with six combinations of three letters O, S, I which one wonders about the relation with what precedes. Indeed, if O is the object of a sign, S the sign itself (= the concrete thing that represents) and I the interpreter, that makes three distinct elements possibly present to the mind according to the focus, so three distinct phanerons, two out of mind and the third is a determination of this mind. In passing, I note that you illustrate by quotations from Peirce only three combinations (what about the other three?) whose coherence is open to discussion. Finally, you quote 2.228-229 (1902) and 2.230 (1910) from which it seems that Liszka would have drawn (by observation?) four normative conditions that a sign should fulfill, in which, if he retains that the sign determines the interpretant, and represents the object thanks to ground, he still ignores that the object determines the sign, although almost all the definitions after 1904-1905 expressly stipulate it. Now, because we have a sign with three elements, each of which can also be present in mind, Peirce can classify the signs according to the categorial belonging of each of them (I have modeled it). So my question is: How will you get the 10 classes of signs, let alone the 28 (and I'm not talking about the 66 that are still not defined)? With OSI, I presume? What will be the use of the 5 others? Best regards, Robert Marty NB: just now, I see that you had posted before I finished reacting. At first glance, I see that the Cartesian product O x Sx I partially answers my question above but does not inform me about the rest. Honorary Professor; Ph.D. Mathematics; Ph.D. Philosophy fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Marty *https://martyrobert.academia.edu/ <https://martyrobert.academia.edu/>* Le mer. 11 août 2021 à 01:15, Jon Awbrey <jawb...@att.net> a écrit : > Cf: Semiotics, Semiosis, Sign Relations • Comment 2 > > https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2021/08/10/semiotics-semiosis-sign-relations-comment-2/ > > Re: Semiotics, Semiosis, Sign Relations • Comment 1 > > https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2021/08/09/semiotics-semiosis-sign-relations-comment-1/ > > All, > > Definitions tend to call on other terms in need of their own definitions, > and so on till the process terminates at the level of primitive terms. > The main two concepts requiring supplementation in Peirce's definition > of a sign relation are the ideas of “correspondence” and “determination”. > We can figure out fairly well what Peirce had in mind from things he wrote > elsewhere, as I explained in the Sign Relation article I added to Wikipedia > 15 years ago. > > Sign Relation > https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sign_relation&oldid=68541642 > > Not daring to look at what's left of that, here's the relevant section > from the OEIS Wiki fork. > > Sign Relation ( https://oeis.org/wiki/Sign_relation ) > • Definition ( https://oeis.org/wiki/Sign_relation#Definition ) > > 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 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 peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . ► To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message NOT to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu 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.
