Jean-Marc, I spoke of the three trichotomies, not the five or six or ten. If you don't address what's said, why do you bother sending posts to a place like peirce-l? If you do not address this structure, 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. then I think that you lose this argument by sheer default. Best, Ben UDell. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jean-Marc Orliaguet" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Peirce Discussion Forum" <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2006 1:48 PM Subject: [peirce-l] Re: 1st image of triangle of boxes (MS799.2) Benjamin Udell wrote: > 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 > > Which "Peirceans" are you thinking of? I'll tell you about the Peirceans, concerning the ordering of the trichotomies. First Peirce, among the Peirceans, gives over the years five different orderings of the trichotomies. Beginning with the triad (S, S-Od, S-If), then continuing with the 6 trichotomies (1904 and 1908) in different orders and the finally with the ten trichotomies (letter to Lady Welby 1908 and 8-344) yet again in different orders - This is summarized on page 231 of Marty's book. None of the orderings are the same, by the way. This is for Peirce's account. Then two other authors Lieb (1977) and Kawama (1976) listed in the same table propose a different ordering of the 10 trichotomies. Marty also mentions on the same page that Jappy proposed a non-linear ordering of the trichotomies. Then Marty claimed that some of the trichotomies are redundant. (this is summarized in a mail dated 2006/06/16 sent to peirce-l which you most likely overlooked.) which would not yield to 66 classes of signs but only 28. Bernard Morand however claims that there is no redundancy and that each trichotomy is independent. is this what you call "settled and fairly simple"? I think you have a very simplified understanding of these issues. Best /JM --- Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber [email protected]
