Jean-Marc, list, Let me add that, while I don't think that you will succeed in presenting the argument for which I think I've shown the need, my characterization of your assertions as being not yet an argument is not itself a mere rhetorical move. A few years ago, I said that you had not presented a strong enough argument as to why the term "triad" should be restricted to the threesome of tri-valently referring to one another and themselves, while "trichotomy" should be restricted to three-fold divisions of terms not related by references _to_ one another. If I recall correctly, I said I leaned toward the terminological distinction but that I wasn't convinced that it should be a hard and fast rule. You then presented to another peirce-lister a very strong argument, via substituting one of these words for the other in a passage by Peirce, showing that the passage then deteriorated into nonsense. That convinced me both of the distinction's value and of Peirce's own recognition of its value (though, if I recall correctly, I said nothing at the time because you seemed gratuitously passionate against your interlocutor), and since then I've adhered (or tried to adhere) to the distinction. In fact I think that acceptance of this terminological distinction has become pretty common, if not universal, on peirce-l. Basically, you won. I would still argue that each triad is also a trichotomy, but for most practical purposes of discussion, it's simpler to speak simply of triads versus trichotomies, and I once even suggested the term "triastic" to serve instead of 'trichotomy' as the genus where of 'trichotomy' (in the narrower sense) and 'triad' would be the species, but nobody seemed to like that word (I think it's a good candidate for the "three" word in the series "monistic, dualistic....").
Best, Ben Udell ----- Original Message ----- From: "Benjamin Udell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Peirce Discussion Forum" <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2006 11:36 AM Subject: [peirce-l] Re: 1st image of triangle of boxes (MS799.2) Jean-Marc, list, I don't even agree in the end with Peirce's classification but it's pretty obvious that whether one partially or totally orders the 10 classes depends on the criteria. And it's pretty obvious that the trichotomies are ordered (or orderable) in a Peircean categorial way, specifically: the 1st trichotomy pertains to the sign's own category, the 2nd to the category in which the sign refers to its object, and the 3rd to the category in which the sign entails its interpretant. If one incorporates this ordering of the trichotomies into the ordering of the classes, then one ends with a complete ordering of the classes. One can also so prioritize as to arrive simply at the partially ordered lattice. This is at least partly a matter of whether one prioritizes the Peircean category of the trichotomy (the ordinality of the "parameter") or the Peircean category of the term IN the trichotomy (the ordinality of the "parametric value"). How does one decide? Well, one looks at it both ways, both ways have their illuminative aspects, so one ends up finally not choosing one way dispensing permanently with the other way. So there seems to be some optionality in how one orders these things. Jean-Marc, however, seems to believe that the ordering question is quite determinate, and leads inevitably to the partial ordering. He does this by dismissing without analyzing the certainly very categorial appearance of the ordering of the trichotomies. Certainly Peirce was quite conscious of this categorial structure of the trichotomies, since his 10-ad of trichotomies is obviously an attempt to extend that structure. Where most Peirceans seem to regard this matter as settled and fairly simple, Jean-Marc differs, which is his right. But I don't see in any of this thread where Jean-Marc addresses what certainly appears to be a Peircean categorial orderability of the trichotomies. Instead he has merely asserted that they are like categories of male/female and old/young, and he has not actually pursued a comparison of his example with the Peircean trichotomies in order to argue for his counter-intuitive assertion. So I think that we're still awaiting an argument. If this argument is supposed to be in Robert Marty's book, then perhaps Jean-Marc can summarize it. If Jean-Marc is unprepared to do that, perhaps Robert can do it. Best, Ben Udell ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jean-Marc Orliaguet" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Peirce Discussion Forum" <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2006 9:15 AM Subject: [peirce-l] Re: 1st image of triangle of boxes (MS799.2) gnusystems wrote: > I'd like to second what Joe says here, > > [[ but my own interest in the classification system is not with what can be > learned from it by manipulating graphical models of it but with understanding > what use it might have when it comes to understanding how to apply it in the > analysis and understanding of distinctively philosophical problems such as > have formed the staple of philosophical concern from the time of the Greeks > on. I wonder if anyone knows of any attempts to do that. ]] > > Specifically, i'm wondering what this classification of signs can contribute > to the old but still vexed problem of characterizing the cognitive "gap" > between humans and other animals. One has to put "gap" in quotation marks > because no one seriously doubts the continuity of the evolutionary process > which has produced human cognition (though some see more "leaps" in the > process than others do). There has been some empirical progress on this > problem recently -- in fact i'm now reviewing a recent book on exactly that, > for the Journal of Consciousness Studies -- but interpreting the data remains > a problem of philosophical concern; and the same goes for the cognitive > development process of individual humans. The origin-of-language problem is > one aspect of this. > > In this light, Joe's (or any) ordinal numbering of Peirce's tenfold > classification looks much like a developmental sequence. Part of the > resemblance is that if we look at the two "ends" of the sequence, there's no > question about which is which. Adult humans are capable of handling > arguments, while human infants and adult monkeys are not; and i would presume > that qualisigns are implicit in sentience itself. But ordering the "steps" or > "stages" in between is much more problematic, both logically and empirically. > [...] precisely, there isn't a linear sequence connecting qualitative knowledge and symbolic knowledge. This is what the lattice structure tells you. There are several paths instead of a linear sequence between 1 and 10. this is described in Marty's book - in the chapter about the correlation between the lattice and knowledge, epistemology, etc. There is also a comparison with Piaget's different stages of intellectual development. see the original article in: "S¨miotique de l'¨pist¨mologie" SEMIOSIS 10 (1978), Agis Verlag, Baden Baden, pp. 24-37 /JM --- Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber [email protected]
