Helmut, List: HR: I think: A sign triad is an irreducible composition of the three relations.
According to Peirce, the genuine triadic relation of representing or (more generally) mediating has three correlates--the sign, its (dynamical) object, and its (final) interpretant. This relation is *irreducibly *triadic, such that it is not *composed *of its constituent dyadic relations, although it *involves *the genuine dyadic relations between the sign and its external correlates--its dynamical object, its dynamical interpretant, and its final interpretant. HR: Each of the three relations (if it may be said, that "the sign alone" is a relation too, a relation between the sign and itself), are of one of three classes so a sign triad it is a composition of classes. According to Peirce, there is no trichotomy for the sign's *relation *with itself. In his 1903 taxonomy, the first trichotomy is for the sign itself *as a correlate*, while the second and third trichotomies are for the sign's genuine dyadic *relations *with its (dynamical) object and (final) interpretant. Together, these three trichotomies result in ten sign classes, not "compositions of classes"--one class of qualisigns (later tones), three classes of sinsigns (tokens), and six classes of legisigns (types); three classes of icons, four classes of indices, and three classes of symbols; six classes of rhemes (later semes), three classes of dicisigns (phemes), and one class of arguments (delomes). In his 1906-1908 taxonomies, Peirce adds trichotomies for the other five correlates, the sign's genuine dyadic relation with its dynamical interpretant, and the genuine triadic relation. Together, these ten trichotomies *would *result in 66 sign classes upon being arranged in their proper logical order of determination, but Peirce himself never did this. HR: But all this doesn´t mean, that between parallel classes (such as icon, index, symbol) there is a gradient instead of a sharp distinction. According to Peirce, one sign can be more or less iconic, indexical, or symbolic than another sign--especially since all symbols *involve *indices and icons, and all indices *involve *icons. Moreover, a sign can be *predominately *iconic while still having indexical and symbolic aspects, or *predominately* indexical while still having symbolic aspects. On the other hand, both tones as "indefinite significant characters" and types as "definitely significant Forms" are *embodied *in tokens, such that every type *involves* tokens (its instances) and every token *involves *tones. Most (maybe all) of the other eight trichotomies in Peirce's 1906-1908 taxonomies are sharp distinctions, although the necessitant typically *involves *the existent and the possible, and the existent *involves *the possible. For example, every sign must be *either *a seme, a pheme, or a delome; but all delomes *involve *phemes and semes, and all phemes *involve *semes. Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt / twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt On Tue, Apr 16, 2024 at 11:33 AM Helmut Raulien <h.raul...@gmx.de> wrote: > > Jon, List, > > you wrote: > > "Classification is not *always *"either-or"--for example, Peirce's 1903 > trichotomy for classifying a sign according to its relation with its object > is icon/index/symbol, yet this is a matter of degree instead of a sharp > distinction. A *pure *icon would signify an interpretant without denoting > any object, and a *pure *index would denote an object without signifying > any interpretant, yet every sign by definition has *both *an object and > an interpretant. That is why a symbol is a *genuine *sign, an index is a > *degenerate > *sign, and an icon is a *doubly degenerate* sign (see EP 2:306-307, c. > 1901)." > > I think: A sign triad is an irreducible composition of the three > relations. Therefore e.g an index doesn´t come alone, it cannot be a "pure" > one. So I donot see a point in guessing, what a pure icon would be like, it > is not possible, can not exist. Each of the three relations (if it may be > said, that "the sign alone" is a relation too, a relation between the sign > and itself), are of one of three classes. so a sign triad it is a > composition of classes. But all this doesn´t mean, that between parallel > classes (such as icon, index, symbol) there is a gradient instead of a > sharp distinction. > > Best regards, Helmut >
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ARISBE: THE PEIRCE GATEWAY is now at https://cspeirce.com and, just as well, at https://www.cspeirce.com . It'll take a while to repair / update all the links! ► 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.
