|
Gary:
Sorry for the confusion of the ten classes with
the ten trichotomies. I didn't read your message carefully enough. I
have no problem with that and there is no need to respond further to
it.
Joe
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2006 11:51
AM
Subject: [peirce-l] Re: Sinsign,
Legisign, Qualisign
Joe,
By now you've read my corrected and completed post
so that I hope some of what you asked is addressed in that corrected post.
Just a point or so more for now. You wrote:
Would you mind reposting the diagram you refer to below?
It
is my trikonic diagram of the 10 classes of signs which you find as an
attached gif and, hopefully, at the bottom of the message. Ben has produced
various versions of this, the last one includes his abduction that relates
Robert's lattice structure to my trikonic one.
I don't recall
what was said about that at that time but I think it important to get clear
on what can and cannot legitimately be imputed to Peirce, and the absence of
availability of the relevant MS material is important to bear in mind and I
don't recall if that was sufficiently stressed at that time.
I
agree. My suggestion has been that the diagram at CP 2.264 and the
one at EP2:491 are equivalent diagrams (there's much more to be said here
regarding some of my reservations, but suffice it to say for now that they are
related precisely to the ones you just expressed).
That Peirce
apparently included this triangular on the back of a letter which included a
very tentative presentation of his very different 10 trichotomies of signs has
I think resulted in confusing that discussion (EP 483-490) with the
diagram in the Essential Peirce which is not as I see it of the 10
trichotomies discussed in the letter, but rather of the famous and completed
10 classes (the diagram is labeled "Signs Divided into Ten Classes" not
into 10 categories).
I do not see how the diagram in EP2 would
have the variety of numberings which they have since they are all "static"
parameters (in Ben's & my sense). Three of them are used to generate the
completed diagram of the 10 classes, the 9 parameters recently discussed, and
the placement of these in the EP2 diagram strongly suggests that the diagram
does not concern these plus 7 additional ones (relating to the two forms of
the object and the three of the interpretant). The nonadic group does not
requite categorial numbering because those parameters are not embodied. Again,
I would hope that diagram observation would make this clear enough.
On
the other hand, and for the reasons you've recently given, except for my own
"guess" at the structure of the later 10 trichotomies (which Ben has put into
an attractive form), I have not spent much time on the unfinished, problematic
10 trichotomies, while I have found the finished classification most
helpful in semeiotic analyses, and not just at the level of semeiotic grammar,
but in critic and methodeutic as
well.
Best,
Gary
---
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
|
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.8.2/357 - Release Date: 6/6/2006
---
Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber archive@mail-archive.com
