Ben asks:
"My basic question here is whether these
structural relations are correct or whether the ordering of the trichotomies "I,
II, III, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII, IX, X" is correct."
REPLY:
The MS material in the logic notebook (MS 339)
shows quite clearly that Peirce did not regard himself as having arrived at
anything he could regard as satisfactory, as regards the ten trichotomies, as
late as Nov. 1 of 1909, and the two versions which he thought were -- at best --
the least objectionable were ones he formulated on Oct 13th of 1905 and March
31st of 1906. The version you are working with is from an unsent draft of
a letter to Welby of 1908, a year earlier than the assessment just mentioned,
and it differs in significant ways from the versions he thought best
though still unsatisfactory. The fact that it appears in the Collected
Papers gives it no special status since it is really just discarded draft
material. Take all talk about the ten trichotomies with a VERY LARGE
grain of salt, Ben, until we get some effective and shared access
to the relevant MS material. Of course it is perfectly okay for
people to do their own constructions of the expanded set of trichotomies as
they should have been formulated, provided they are clear on the fact
that this is their own theory; but if the question is as to what Peirce's theory
was it can only be said that it was work in progress which never arrived
at a reasonably stable developed state and which cannot reasonably be
represented as being his view.
Joe Ransdell
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2006 2:50
AM
Subject: [peirce-l] Re: Sinsign,
Legisign, Qualisign
Various corrections. Sorry about that.
Also, anybody replying, please remember to delete all unneeded graphics
and text. - Ben
-------------------
Gary R., Robert, Bernard, Wilfred, Claudio, List,
I thought I'd try to the branching style chart of Peirce's
ten-adic division of sign parameters. (These parameters are not mutually
independent). I supposed that the same formal relations applied as with the
main three trichotomies of parameters (qualisign/sinsign/legisign,
icon/index/symbol, and rheme/dicisign/argument).
As you can see, it gets complicated and long, and I ended up omitting
divisions V through IX.
Then I did a complete table of the "branching" variety but I did it
without repeating such terms as "assurance of instinct" 55 times.
My basic question here is whether these structural relations are correct
or whether the ordering of the trichotomies "I, II, III, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII,
IX, X" is correct. If the same rules hold for these 10 trichotomies as for the
three, then it would appear, for instance, that all symbols are copulants.
Copulants "neither describe nor denote their Objects, but merely express
logical relations"; for example "If--then--"; "--causes--." That
seems like it just must be wrong. Then a symbol like the word "red" couldn't
be a symbol, instead, since it's descriptive, it can be a legisign, a sinsign,
or a qualisign, but in any case it has to be a descriptive abstractive
iconic hypothetical sympathetic suggestive gratific rhematic assurance of
instinct. That just can't be right.
After this big table, I append (for those who wish to review these 10
trichotomies) a table of the 10 trichotomical divisions of sign parameters,
pretty much using a table which I found in "Problems With Peirce" http://jameselkins.com/Texts/Peirce.pdf ,
which is an excerpt from _ Visual Culture: A Skeptical Reader_ (work
in progress) by James Elkins. (The nice thing about his table is (a) it
includes quotes from Peirce & (b) it's on the Internet.)
The funny thing is, I once produced a 10-ad of the sign parameter
trichotomies for Gary Richmond, and he had most of that info included in it,
but I forgot about it because, at the time, I simply thought of it vaguely as
"advanced" classifications and I hadn't mentally connected the "parameters"
with it.
Best, Ben Udell.
I. The sign in itself |
II. The nature of the immediate object |
III. The nature of the dynamic object |
IV. The relation of the sign to the dynamic
object |
V. The nature of the immediate interpretant |
VI. The nature of the dynamic interpretant |
VII. The relation of the sign to the dynamic
interpretant |
VIII. The nature of the normal interpretant the Purpose
of the Eventual Interpretant |
IX. The relation of the sign to the normal
interpretant |
X. The triadic relation of the sign to its dynamic object and
its normal interpretant |
qualisign |
descriptive |
abstractive |
iconic |
hypothetical |
sympathetic |
suggestive |
gratific |
rhematic |
assurance of instinct |
sinsign < |
designative < |
concretive < |
indexical < |
categorical < |
percussive < |
imperative < |
to produce action < |
dicent < |
assurance of experience |
/ /
legisign-- \ \ |
descriptive |
abstractive |
iconic |
hypothetical |
sympathetic |
suggestive |
gratific |
rhematic |
assurance of instinct |
designative < |
concretive < |
indexical < |
categorical < |
percussive < |
imperative < |
to produce action < |
dicent < |
assurance of experience |
/ copulant-- \ |
abstractive |
iconic |
hypothetical |
sympathetic |
suggestive |
gratific |
rhematic |
assurance of instinct |
concretive < |
indexical < |
categorical < |
percussive < |
imperative < |
to produce action < |
dicent < |
assurance of experience |
/ collective-- \ |
iconic |
hypothetical |
sympathetic |
suggestive |
gratific |
rhematic |
assurance of instinct |
indexical < |
categorical < |
percussive < |
imperative < |
to produce action < |
dicent < |
assurance of experience |
/ symbolic-- \ |
hypothetical |
sympathetic |
suggestive |
gratific |
rhematic |
assurance of instinct |
categorical < |
percussive < |
imperative < |
to produce action < |
dicent < |
assurance of experience |
/ relative-- \ |
sympathetic |
suggestive |
gratific |
rhematic |
assurance of instinct |
percussive < |
imperative < |
to produce action < |
dicent < |
assurance of experience |
/ usual-- \ |
suggestive |
gratific |
rhematic |
assurance of instinct |
imperative < |
to produce action < |
dicent < |
assurance of experience |
/ indicative-- \ |
gratific |
rhematic |
assurance of instinct |
to produce action < |
dicent < |
assurance of experience |
/ to produce self-control-- \ |
rhematic |
assurance of instinct |
dicent < |
assurance of experience |
/ argumental - \ |
assurance of instinct |
assurance of experience |
assurance of form |
Table using material
as gathered in "Problems With Peirce" http://jameselkins.com/Texts/Peirce.pdf ,
which is an excerpt from _Visual Culture: A Skeptical Reader_ (work
in progress) by James Elkins.
I. The sign itself "the Mode of
Apprehension of the signnitself"; "different ways in which objects are
present to minds" |
1. (Potisigns) Qualisigns (tone, mark) Signs "in themselves
as they are in themselves"; as "feelings"; for example, "At the first
instant of waking from profound sleep" |
2. (Actisigns) Sinsigns (token, replica) "the sense of
something opposing ones Effort, something preventing one from opening a
door slightly ajar"; "Signs as Experienced his et nunc; such as
any single word in a single place in a single sentence of a single page
of a single copy of a book." |
3. (Famisigns) Legisigns (type) "that which is stored away in
ones Memory; Familiar, and as such, General"
|
II. The nature of the immediate object "the
Mode of Presentation of the Immediate Object"; "as objects may be
presented" |
1. Descriptives, "such as a geometrical surface, or an absolutely
definite or distinct notion" |
2. Designatives (Denotatives, Indicatives, Denominatives) "like a
Demonstrative pronoun, or a pointing finger, brutely direct the mental
eyeballs of the interpreter to the object" without "independent
reasoning" |
3. Copulants "neither describe nor denote their Objects, but merely
express
logical relations"; for example "If--then--";
"--causes--." |
III. The nature of the dynamic object "the
Mode of Being of the Dynamical Object" |
1. Abstractive "such as Color, Mass, Whiteness" |
2. Concretive "such as Man, Charlemagne" |
3. Collective "such as Mankind, the Human Race" |
IV. The relation of the sign to the dynamic
object |
1. Icon (Likeness) |
2. Index |
3. Symbol (General Sign) |
V. The nature of the immediate interpretant |
1. Hypothetical "the Mode of Presentation of the Immediate
Interpretant"; "the Nature of the Immediate Interpretant" |
2. Categorical (Imperative) |
3. Relative |
VI. The nature of the dynamic interpretant |
1. Sympathetic (Congruentive) "the Mode of Being of the Dynamical
Interpretant"; "the Nature of the Dynamic Interpretant" |
2. Percussive (Shocking) |
3. Usual |
VII. The relation of the sign to the dynamic
interpretant the Manner of Appeal to the Dynamic
Interpretant; the nature of the Immediate (or Felt?) Interpretant |
1. Suggestive (Ejaculative) Merely giving utterance to
feeling |
2. Imperative Including, of course, Interrogatives |
3. Indicative |
VIII. The nature of the normal interpretant
the Purpose of the Eventual Interpretant |
1. Gratific |
2. To produce action |
3. To produce self-control |
IX. The relation of the sign to the normal
interpretant the Nature of the Influence of the
Sign |
1. Rheme (Seme, Term, Sumisign) like a simple sign |
2. Dicisign (Pheme, Proposition) with antecedent and
consequent |
3. Argument (Delome, Suadisign) with antecedent, consequent,
and principle of sequence |
X. The triadic relation of the sign to its dynamic
object and its normal interpretant the Nature of the Assurance
of the Utterance |
1. Assurance of Instinct |
2. Assurance of Experience
|
3. Assurance of Form |
--- Message from peirce-l forum to
subscriber [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Message from peirce-l forum to
subscriber [EMAIL PROTECTED]
No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free
Edition. Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.8.2/357 - Release Date:
6/6/2006
|