Benjamin Udell wrote:
Jean-Marc:
In reading Joe's response to you, I am reminded that you still haven't
taken a stand on the three main trichotomies and their categorial
correlations. If you do in fact understand the correlations, you may
feel that it destroys your argument to admit that you understand them.
But then it comes to the same thing.
I have answered to that already: there are no obvious correlations, this
is a pure guess, an abduction of yours. That many people find it easy to
draw a correlation does not mean that they are right.
Indeed:
- the first is the trichotomy of the sign in itself
- the second is a trichotomy of the relation between the sign and its
(dynamic) object
- the third is a trichotomy of the relation between the sign and its
(final) interpretant
I don't see why you are claiming that the third trichotomy is associated
to the third category more so than the second trichotomy is. What makes
you think so?
If you claim so, it is up to you to show why there is a correlation. It
is not my task, it's yours, and in that case drawing powerpoints is not
enough. You need to come with some deductive argument, not with a series
of images in 3D.
Now considering Joe's argument, to answer the post that you are
referring to, according to which only 3 trichotomies would be
representative of Peirce's view, and the rest would be speculation, I
can reply to that argument that even though Peirce did not settle for an
exact list of trichotomies he did not have any trouble considering that
there were more than 3. He writes that very explicitly:
==================
CP 8.343
...* I base a recognition of ten respects in which Signs may be
divided*. I do not say that these divisions are enough. But since *every
one of them turns out to be a trichotomy*, it follows that in order to
decide what classes of signs result from them, I have 310 or 59049,
difficult questions to carefully consider; and therefore I will not
undertake to carry my systematical division of signs any further, but
will leave that for future explorers.
==================
In writing that there is no mention that, since there are only three
categories, there also ought to be only three trichotomies and not more.
This only is enough to question the argument according to which you
claim there is a correlation between the trichotomies and the
categories. Are the 4th trichotomy and the 5th correlated with some
fourthness or fifthness, etc ?
I think that you are mixing trichotomies with triads, ordinals and with
the categories.
PS: Also please stop using such a childish language as "I'll take the
win", "you lose the argument" ... it is your argument, not mine.
/JM
---
Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber [email protected]
