Benjamin Udell wrote:
Jean-Marc,
You've evaded the question again. So, we can take your default as your tacit
admission that you don't grasp even the appearance of the categorial
correlations with the three trichotomies. I suppose that this tacit admission
of yours is better than nothing, but it is really quite an astonishing
admission for you to have made. It's not particularly illuminating of the
philosophical topic when the interlocutor simply abandons the field, but I'll
take the win.
Best, Ben Udell
Ben, this is not meant to get you angry or anything, but it is my right
to have a different opinion. If it also differs from others' it is OK.
The correlation that you mention -- if there is any -- is not used to
derive the 10 classes. If there was a correlation it would be
interesting but for aesthetic considerations. To take an example it is
possible to derive 28 classes of signs on the basis of 6 or 10
trichotomies, without considering any correlation between the
trichotomies and the categories.
the most important aspect for deriving the classes are the relations of
determination between S, O and I, and the phenomenology of these
elements when considering all the possible modes of connections between
them. This is where the categories are getting involved, including their
degenerate modes.
otherwise for the matter of associating any given trichotomy with a
category I would associate it with thirdness, because a trichotomy
always involves 3 things.
And I would associate dichotomies with secondness, and non-divisibility
with firstness, monads.
/JM
---
Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber archive@mail-archive.com
