Re: [PEIRCE-L] 10 Classes of Signs (Question on CP 8.376, 1908)
Cécile, Edwina, Jon, List, James Liszka made an important observation about Peirce's classification of signs: “the theory is more complex than the phenomenon it hopes to explain." Since Peirce himself was constantly rewriting and revising the details, we can't be sure what he would have written if he had a few more years to write. And we have no right to claim that anything we (or anybody else) would write is what Peirce would approve. Peirce's correspondence with Lady Welby is an important key to almost everything he wrote after 1903. Up to 1903, his writings about phenomenology followed abstract issues in a style influenced by Kant -- even on issues where he differed from or went beyond Kant. But after he read Welby's book on significs and began his correspondence with her, his writings on phaneroscopy are very different from anything he had written about phenomenology. They are more concrete and address issues they are both discussing in their letters. Please reread the excerpts from letters to Lady Welby in EP2, pp 477 ff. Note how tentative and uncertain he is about those issues. On p. 483, "The ten divisions appear to me to be all Trichotomies; but it is possible that some of them are not properly so. Of these Ten Trichotomies, I have a clear apprehension of some (which I mark...), and unsatisfactory and doubtful notion of others (which I mark ...), and a tolerable but not thoroughly tried conception of others (which I mark ... for ...), almost clear, for ... hardly better." (The Greek letters do not copy properly.) On p. 488, he writes as if he is not sure of himself: "From the summer of 1905 to the same time in 1906,1 devoted much study to my ten trichotomies of signs. It is time I reverted to the subject, as I know I could now make it much clearer. But I dare say some of my former names are better than those I now use If Peirce is unsure of how to proceed, we cannot assume that we know better than he did. Any attempt to say anything beyond what Peirce wrote is an opinion of the person who does the writing. It may be better, it may be worse. But all we can say is that it is not what Peirce wrote. Nobody can claim that their opinion is what Peirce intended. On p. 490, he admits "I don't know whether these trichotomies will suggest anything to you or not. No doubt you [Welby] have studied relations to Interpretants in some directions much further than I.[...] In summary, anything not written by Peirce himself is the opinion of the person who writes it.Nobody can claim that their summary, paraphrase, or extension is anything that Peirce intended.And even writings that Peirce intended on one occasion may be something he later rejected or restated in a different way. Fundamental principle: Any comment about anything Peirce wrote, is a personal opinion of the author. Other people may have good reasons for disagreeing -- or not. That's why we need open-ended discussions, especially about topics that Peirce himself was not clear about. However, there are some subjects -- in mathematics and mathematical logic and in experimental sciences -- where developments during the past century have gone far beyond Peirce. But even in those areas, Peirce has important points to add, and experts in those fields often agree that Peirce was right. John _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ARISBE: THE PEIRCE GATEWAY is now at https://cspeirce.com and, just as well, at https://www.cspeirce.com . It'll take a while to repair / update all the links! ► PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . ► To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message NOT to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with UNSUBSCRIBE PEIRCE-L in the SUBJECT LINE of the message and nothing in the body. More at https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/help/user-signoff.html . ► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary Richmond; and co-managed by him and Ben Udell.
Re: [PEIRCE-L] 10 Classes of Signs (Question on CP 8.376, 1908)
Cécile, List: CC: Would it be too much of a stretch, in the interest of clarity (while still respecting the essential nature of Peirce's work), to consider the following equivalences as relatively acceptable? This is precisely the mistake that I have been trying to help you avoid. (1) below is true, but (2) and (3) are false. Icon/index/symbol is is the 2nd trichotomy in 1903 and the 4th trichotomy in 1908, while abstractive/concretive/collective is the 3rd trichotomy in 1908. Rheme/dicent/argument is the 3rd trichotomy in 1908 and the 9th trichotomy in 1908--generalized to seme/pheme/delome (see CP 5.438, 1906)--while gratific/actuous/temperative is the 8th trichotomy in 1908. Again, the fundamental difference here is that the 2nd and 3rd trichotomies in 1903 are for the sign's *relations *to its (dynamical) object and (final) interpretant, while the 1st and 3rd trichotomies in the 1908 diagram are for the dynamical object and final interpretant *themselves *(as correlates). CC: If this is not too far-fetched, then the rhematic indexical legisign (321 in the 1903 taxonomy) is relatively similar to the collective gratific token (321 in the 1908 diagram), isn't it? No, the only way that a rhematic indexical *legisign *(1903) can be a collective gratific *token* (1908) is if the latter happens to be a rhematic indexical *sinsign *that is a replica of the former (CP 2.259, EP 2:294). A legisign is a type, not a token; an index can be a concretive, not just a collective; and a rheme is not necessarily a gratific, unless the S-FI trichotomy comes *before *the FI trichotomy, which seems unlikely since it is reasonable to expect each relation trichotomy to come *after *the ones for its constituent correlates. Regards, Jon On Mon, Jan 22, 2024 at 3:52 PM Cécile Cosculluela < cecile.coscullu...@univ-pau.fr> wrote: > Jon, List, > > Would it be too much of a stretch, in the interest of clarity (while still > respecting the essential nature of Peirce's work), to consider the > following equivalences as relatively acceptable? > > 1) Regarding the sign (or representamen) itself: qualisign / sinsign / > legisign are essentially of the same nature as tone / token / type. > 2) Regarding the sign (or representamen)'s dyadic relation to its > object: icon / index / symbol are essentially of the same nature as > abstractive / concretive / collective (CP 8.366). > 3) Regarding the sign (or representamen)'s triadic relation to its > interpretant via its object: rheme / dicisign / argument are essentially of > the same nature as gratific / to produce action / to produce self-control > (CP 8.372). > > If this is not too far-fetched, then the rhematic indexical legisign (321 > in the 1903 taxonomy) is relatively similar to the collective gratific > token (321 in the 1908 diagram), isn't it? > > Best regards, > > -- > *Cécile Cosculluela* > MC anglais UPPA ∗ SSH ∗ LEA > Maître de Conférences en Etudes Anglophones > *Associate Professor of English as a Second Language* > *Semiotics • Linguistics • Grammar • Translation* > > -- > *De: *"Jon Alan Schmidt" > *À: *"Peirce-L" > *Envoyé: *Lundi 22 Janvier 2024 22:13:05 > *Objet: *Re: [PEIRCE-L] 10 Classes of Signs (Question on CP 8.376, 1908) > > Cécile, List: > > 321 in the 1903 taxonomy (R 799) is a rhematic indexical legisign. The > sign itself is a general law (3 for legisign), its dyadic *relation *to > its object is existential (2 for indexical), and its dyadic *relation *to > its interpretant is a qualitative possibility (1 for rhematic). > > 321 in the 1908 diagram (CP 8.376/EP 2:491) is a collective gratific > token. The dynamical object *itself *is a necessitant (3 for collective), > the sign itself is an existent (2 for token), and the final interpretant > *itself > *is a possible (1 for gratific). > > In both cases, Peirce's "rule of determination" (EP 2:491) is such that > each successive digit always must be equal to or less than its predecessor. > Consequently, there is no class 223 in either taxonomy--the dicent > indexical legisign is 322 in the 1903 taxonomy as explicitly shown in R > 799, while 322 in the 1908 taxonomy is a collective actuous token. > > Regards, > > Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA > Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian > www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt / twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt > > On Mon, Jan 22, 2024 at 2:55 PM Cécile Cosculluela < > cecile.coscullu...@univ-pau.fr> wrote: > >> Thank you Edwina. I'd like to ask another question relative to your third >> point: >> >> "3] Peirce’s outline in 2.264 of the ten classes begins with the >> Interpretant relation, then the Object Relation..endiing with the >> Representamen. So - 223 = a Dicent Indexical Legisign. >> >> Class VI is a Rhematic Indexical Legisign 321 - and it starts with the >> Interpretant [rhematic] ..then the Object Relation and finally- the >> Representamen. So, the number
Re: [PEIRCE-L] 10 Classes of Signs (Question on CP 8.376, 1908)
Cécile, List: On the contrary ... - The 1st trichotomy in 1903 (sign itself) is also the 1st trichotomy in 1908 (sign itself). - The 2nd trichotomy in 1903 (sign's *relation *to its object) is the 4th trichotomy in 1908 (sign's relation to its *dynamical *object). - The 3rd trichotomy in 1903 (sign's *relation *to its interpretant) is the 9th trichotomy in 1908 (sign's relation to its *normal/final* interpretant). However, the 1st and 3rd trichotomies in the 1908 triangular diagram are *not *the 2nd and 3rd trichotomies in the 1903 taxonomy, *nor *the 4th and 9th trichotomies in the 1908 taxonomy. - The 1st trichotomy in the diagram is the 3rd trichotomy overall (dynamical object *itself*). - The 2nd trichotomy in the diagram is the 1st trichotomy overall (sign itself). - The 3rd trichotomy in the diagram is the 8th trichotomy overall (normal/final interpretant *itself*). Peirce's numbering of the ten trichotomies in CP 8.344/EP 2:482-483 and EP 2:483-490 is *not *their proper logical order for ascertaining sign classes in accordance with his "rule of determination" (EP 2:481). We know from the 1903 taxonomy that 1st (S) comes before 4th (DO-S), which comes before 9th (S-FI). We know from the triangular diagram that 3rd (DO) comes before 1st (S), which comes before 8th (FI). We know from EP 2:481 that 3rd (DO) comes before 2nd (IO), which comes before 1st (S), which comes before all three interpretants--8th (FI), 6th (DI), and 5th (II), although there is ongoing debate over whether "destinate" and "explicit" correspond to "final" and "immediate" (my view) or vice-versa. And we know from a 1904 letter to Lady Welby (CP 8.338) that 9th (S-FI) comes before 7th (S-DI). In summary, we know that a partial logical order of the trichotomies is 3rd (DO), 2nd (IO), 1st (S), 4th (DO-S), 9th (S-FI), 7th (S-DI). We do not know for sure where to insert the three interpretant trichotomies--5th (II), 6th (DI), 8th (FI)--except that they must come after 1st (S). We also do not know for sure where to insert 10th (DO-S-FI), although Peirce's corresponding names in some versions (abducent/inducent/deducent) suggest that it is a division of arguments, so it presumably comes after 9th (S-FI). Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt / twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt On Mon, Jan 22, 2024 at 3:17 PM Cécile Cosculluela < cecile.coscullu...@univ-pau.fr> wrote: > Thank you Jon for clarifying those points. I'd like to make sure I > understand correctly. Would you please confirm that the 1st, 4th, and 9th > respects according to which the chief divisions of signs are determined in > CP 8.344 are not essentially the same ones as the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd > trichotomies respectively in CP 2.244, 247 & 250 ? > > -- > *Cécile Cosculluela* > MC anglais UPPA ∗ SSH ∗ LEA > Maître de Conférences en Etudes Anglophones > *Associate Professor of English as a Second Language* > *Semiotics • Linguistics • Grammar • Translation* > _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ARISBE: THE PEIRCE GATEWAY is now at https://cspeirce.com and, just as well, at https://www.cspeirce.com . It'll take a while to repair / update all the links! ► PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . ► To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message NOT to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with UNSUBSCRIBE PEIRCE-L in the SUBJECT LINE of the message and nothing in the body. More at https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/help/user-signoff.html . ► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary Richmond; and co-managed by him and Ben Udell.
Re: [PEIRCE-L] 10 Classes of Signs (Question on CP 8.376, 1908)
Jon, List, Would it be too much of a stretch, in the interest of clarity (while still respecting the essential nature of Peirce's work), to consider the following equivalences as relatively acceptable? 1) Regarding the sign (or representamen) itself: qualisign / sinsign / legisign are essentially of the same nature as tone / token / type. 2) Regarding the sign (or representamen)'s dyadic relation to its object: icon / index / symbol are essentially of the same nature as abstractive / concretive / collective (CP 8.366). 3) Regarding the sign (or representamen)'s triadic relation to its interpretant via its object: rheme / dicisign / argument are essentially of the same nature as gratific / to produce action / to produce self-control (CP 8.372). If this is not too far-fetched, then the rhematic indexical legisign (321 in the 1903 taxonomy) is relatively similar to the collective gratific token (321 in the 1908 diagram), isn't it? Best regards, Cécile Cosculluela MC anglais UPPA ∗ SSH ∗ LEA Maître de Conférences en Etudes Anglophones Associate Professor of English as a Second Language Semiotics • Linguistics • Grammar • Translation De: "Jon Alan Schmidt" À: "Peirce-L" Envoyé: Lundi 22 Janvier 2024 22:13:05 Objet: Re: [PEIRCE-L] 10 Classes of Signs (Question on CP 8.376, 1908) Cécile, List: 321 in the 1903 taxonomy (R 799) is a rhematic indexical legisign. The sign itself is a general law (3 for legisign), its dyadic relation to its object is existential (2 for indexical), and its dyadic relation to its interpretant is a qualitative possibility (1 for rhematic). 321 in the 1908 diagram (CP 8.376/EP 2:491) is a collective gratific token. The dynamical object itself is a necessitant (3 for collective), the sign itself is an existent (2 for token), and the final interpretant itself is a possible (1 for gratific). In both cases, Peirce's "rule of determination" (EP 2:491) is such that each successive digit always must be equal to or less than its predecessor. Consequently, there is no class 223 in either taxonomy--the dicent indexical legisign is 322 in the 1903 taxonomy as explicitly shown in R 799, while 322 in the 1908 taxonomy is a collective actuous token. Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian [ http://www.linkedin.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt | www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt ] / [ http://twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt | twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt ] On Mon, Jan 22, 2024 at 2:55 PM Cécile Cosculluela < [ mailto:cecile.coscullu...@univ-pau.fr | cecile.coscullu...@univ-pau.fr ] > wrote: Thank you Edwina. I'd like to ask another question relative to your third point: "3] Peirce’s outline in 2.264 of the ten classes begins with the Interpretant relation, then the Object Relation..endiing with the Representamen. So - 223 = a Dicent Indexical Legisign. Class VI is a Rhematic Indexical Legisign 321 - and it starts with the Interpretant [rhematic] ..then the Object Relation and finally- the Representamen. So, the number 3 refers to the Representamen." 321 is indeed the Rhematic Indexical Legisign according to CP 2.264, which starts with the Interpretant, then the Object, and finally the Representamen. But doesn't 321 according to CP 8.376 start with the object, then the Representamen, and finally the Interpretant? Cécile Cosculluela MC anglais UPPA ∗ SSH ∗ LEA Maître de Conférences en Etudes Anglophones Associate Professor of English as a Second Language Semiotics • Linguistics • Grammar • Translation _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ARISBE: THE PEIRCE GATEWAY is now at https://cspeirce.com and, just as well, at https://www.cspeirce.com . It'll take a while to repair / update all the links! ► PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . ► To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message NOT to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with UNSUBSCRIBE PEIRCE-L in the SUBJECT LINE of the message and nothing in the body. More at https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/help/user-signoff.html . ► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary Richmond; and co-managed by him and Ben Udell. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ARISBE: THE PEIRCE GATEWAY is now at https://cspeirce.com and, just as well, at https://www.cspeirce.com . It'll take a while to repair / update all the links! ► PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . ► To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message NOT to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with UNSUBSCRIBE PEIRCE-L in the SUBJECT LINE of the message and nothing in the body. More at https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/help/user-signoff.html . ► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary Richmond; and co-managed by him and Ben Udell.
Re: [PEIRCE-L] 10 Classes of Signs (Question on CP 8.376, 1908)
Cécile, List: 321 in the 1903 taxonomy (R 799) is a rhematic indexical legisign. The sign itself is a general law (3 for legisign), its dyadic *relation *to its object is existential (2 for indexical), and its dyadic *relation *to its interpretant is a qualitative possibility (1 for rhematic). 321 in the 1908 diagram (CP 8.376/EP 2:491) is a collective gratific token. The dynamical object *itself *is a necessitant (3 for collective), the sign itself is an existent (2 for token), and the final interpretant *itself *is a possible (1 for gratific). In both cases, Peirce's "rule of determination" (EP 2:491) is such that each successive digit always must be equal to or less than its predecessor. Consequently, there is no class 223 in either taxonomy--the dicent indexical legisign is 322 in the 1903 taxonomy as explicitly shown in R 799, while 322 in the 1908 taxonomy is a collective actuous token. Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt / twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt On Mon, Jan 22, 2024 at 2:55 PM Cécile Cosculluela < cecile.coscullu...@univ-pau.fr> wrote: > Thank you Edwina. I'd like to ask another question relative to your third > point: > > "3] Peirce’s outline in 2.264 of the ten classes begins with the > Interpretant relation, then the Object Relation..endiing with the > Representamen. So - 223 = a Dicent Indexical Legisign. > > Class VI is a Rhematic Indexical Legisign 321 - and it starts with the > Interpretant [rhematic] ..then the Object Relation and finally- the > Representamen. So, the number 3 refers to the Representamen." > > 321 is indeed the Rhematic Indexical Legisign according to CP 2.264, which > starts with the Interpretant, then the Object, and finally the > Representamen. But doesn't 321 according to CP 8.376 start with the object, > then the Representamen, and finally the Interpretant? > > -- > *Cécile Cosculluela* > MC anglais UPPA ∗ SSH ∗ LEA > Maître de Conférences en Etudes Anglophones > *Associate Professor of English as a Second Language* > *Semiotics • Linguistics • Grammar • Translation* > _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ARISBE: THE PEIRCE GATEWAY is now at https://cspeirce.com and, just as well, at https://www.cspeirce.com . It'll take a while to repair / update all the links! ► PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . ► To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message NOT to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with UNSUBSCRIBE PEIRCE-L in the SUBJECT LINE of the message and nothing in the body. More at https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/help/user-signoff.html . ► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary Richmond; and co-managed by him and Ben Udell.
Re: [PEIRCE-L] 10 Classes of Signs (Question on CP 8.376, 1908)
Cécile, List: I should add that the three-digit sign class identifiers in manuscript R 799 (undated by Robin) are for the 1903 taxonomy as indicated by the accompanying text, not the (abbreviated) 1908 taxonomy as shown in the triangular diagram. Again, in R 799, the first number is for the sign itself, the second is for its *relation *to its object, and the third is for its *relation *to its interpretant; while in CP 8.376/EP 2:491, the first number is for the object *itself*, the second is for the sign itself, and the third is for the interpretant *itself*. Regards, Jon On Mon, Jan 22, 2024 at 1:21 PM Jon Alan Schmidt wrote: > Cécile, List: > > As Peirce states in the accompanying text, the triangular diagram in CP > 8.376 (also EP 2:491) indicates ten sign classes that can be obtained from > three trichotomies--one for the object, one for the interpretant, and one > for the sign itself. It is very important to recognize two facts about > this. First, he does not stipulate the *order *of these trichotomies for > obtaining the ten classes; but in accordance with what I call the "rule of > determination" (EP 2:481), the numbers in the diagram are *only *consistent > with it being first the one for the object (upper left), then the one for > the sign (bottom), and finally the one for the interpretant (upper right). > Second, these are *not *the same three trichotomies that he uses to > obtain ten classes of signs in 1903; those are first the one for the > representamen *itself* (qualisign/sinsign/legisign), then the one for its > *dyadic relation > *to its object (icon/index/symbol), and finally the one for its *dyadic > relation > *to its interpretant (rheme/dicisign/argument). > > Consequently, it is a mistake to assign *any *of the 1903 class names to *any > *of the ten numbered combinations in the 1908 diagram--they are very > different taxonomies. After all, the 1908 diagram is in a postscript > written just three days after Peirce spells out *ten *trichotomies (EP > 2:479-480) from which *66 *sign classes can be obtained, once their > proper logical order is established--the subject of ongoing investigation > and considerable debate by Peirce scholars, because he never fully worked > it out himself. Six of the ten trichotomies are for the correlates > themselves--the sign (now synonymous with representamen), its two objects, > and its three interpretants. Three are for the sign's external dyadic > relations--to its dynamical object, its dynamical interpretant, and its > final interpretant. The last is for the sign's genuine triadic relation to > its dynamical object and its final interpretant. > > If we take the three trichotomies in the 1908 diagram as being for the > *genuine > *correlates--the dynamical object (abstractive/concretive/collective), > the sign itself (tone/token/type), and the final interpretant > (gratific/actuous=to produce action/temperative=to produce > self-control)--then the ten classes that result would be the following, > from left to right and from bottom to top. > >1. 333 - Collective Temperative Type >2. 332 - Collective Actuous Type >3. 331 - Collective Gratific Type >4. 322 - Collective Actuous Token >5. 321 - Collective Gratific Token >6. 311 - Collective Gratific Tone >7. 222 - Concretive Actuous Token >8. 221 - Concretive Gratific Token >9. 211 - Concretive Gratific Tone >10. 111 - Abstractive Gratific Tone > > Peirce names the 1903 classes in reverse order of the > trichotomies--interpretant relation, then object relation, then sign > itself--while my suggested names here correspond to dynamical object, then > final interpretant, then sign itself. The 1903 taxonomy has one class of > qualisigns, three classes of sinsigns, and six classes of legisigns; but > this (abbreviated) 1908 taxonomy has three classes of tones, four classes > of tokens, and three classes of types--again, the two taxonomies are very > different. > > In any case, I have come to agree with James Liszka ( > https://doi.org/10.1515/sem-2018-0089) that increasingly elaborate > classifications of *individual *signs result from a "reductionist > approach to sign analysis that loses the holistic and integrative aspects > of its triadic character," with the problematic outcome that “the theory is > more complex than the phenomenon it hopes to explain." As he proposes, "the > remedy is to re-emphasize the processual and functional view of semiosis, > rather than to focus on particular classes of signs." Accordingly, I > advocate conceiving the entire universe as one immense sign--a vast > semiosic continuum in which the whole is ontologically prior to its parts, > which are likewise signs but indefinite unless and until deliberately > marked off for a particular purpose. > > Regards, > > Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA > Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian > www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt / twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt >
Re: [PEIRCE-L] 10 Classes of Signs (Question on CP 8.376, 1908)
Cécile, List: As Peirce states in the accompanying text, the triangular diagram in CP 8.376 (also EP 2:491) indicates ten sign classes that can be obtained from three trichotomies--one for the object, one for the interpretant, and one for the sign itself. It is very important to recognize two facts about this. First, he does not stipulate the *order *of these trichotomies for obtaining the ten classes; but in accordance with what I call the "rule of determination" (EP 2:481), the numbers in the diagram are *only *consistent with it being first the one for the object (upper left), then the one for the sign (bottom), and finally the one for the interpretant (upper right). Second, these are *not *the same three trichotomies that he uses to obtain ten classes of signs in 1903; those are first the one for the representamen *itself* (qualisign/sinsign/legisign), then the one for its *dyadic relation *to its object (icon/index/symbol), and finally the one for its *dyadic relation *to its interpretant (rheme/dicisign/argument). Consequently, it is a mistake to assign *any *of the 1903 class names to *any *of the ten numbered combinations in the 1908 diagram--they are very different taxonomies. After all, the 1908 diagram is in a postscript written just three days after Peirce spells out *ten *trichotomies (EP 2:479-480) from which *66 *sign classes can be obtained, once their proper logical order is established--the subject of ongoing investigation and considerable debate by Peirce scholars, because he never fully worked it out himself. Six of the ten trichotomies are for the correlates themselves--the sign (now synonymous with representamen), its two objects, and its three interpretants. Three are for the sign's external dyadic relations--to its dynamical object, its dynamical interpretant, and its final interpretant. The last is for the sign's genuine triadic relation to its dynamical object and its final interpretant. If we take the three trichotomies in the 1908 diagram as being for the *genuine *correlates--the dynamical object (abstractive/concretive/collective), the sign itself (tone/token/type), and the final interpretant (gratific/actuous=to produce action/temperative=to produce self-control)--then the ten classes that result would be the following, from left to right and from bottom to top. 1. 333 - Collective Temperative Type 2. 332 - Collective Actuous Type 3. 331 - Collective Gratific Type 4. 322 - Collective Actuous Token 5. 321 - Collective Gratific Token 6. 311 - Collective Gratific Tone 7. 222 - Concretive Actuous Token 8. 221 - Concretive Gratific Token 9. 211 - Concretive Gratific Tone 10. 111 - Abstractive Gratific Tone Peirce names the 1903 classes in reverse order of the trichotomies--interpretant relation, then object relation, then sign itself--while my suggested names here correspond to dynamical object, then final interpretant, then sign itself. The 1903 taxonomy has one class of qualisigns, three classes of sinsigns, and six classes of legisigns; but this (abbreviated) 1908 taxonomy has three classes of tones, four classes of tokens, and three classes of types--again, the two taxonomies are very different. In any case, I have come to agree with James Liszka ( https://doi.org/10.1515/sem-2018-0089) that increasingly elaborate classifications of *individual *signs result from a "reductionist approach to sign analysis that loses the holistic and integrative aspects of its triadic character," with the problematic outcome that “the theory is more complex than the phenomenon it hopes to explain." As he proposes, "the remedy is to re-emphasize the processual and functional view of semiosis, rather than to focus on particular classes of signs." Accordingly, I advocate conceiving the entire universe as one immense sign--a vast semiosic continuum in which the whole is ontologically prior to its parts, which are likewise signs but indefinite unless and until deliberately marked off for a particular purpose. Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt / twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt On Mon, Jan 22, 2024 at 9:22 AM Cécile Cosculluela < cecile.coscullu...@univ-pau.fr> wrote: > Dear all, > > In CP 8.376 (1908), the order in which to read the three numbers > (mentioned in the small triangles that make up the triangle with the ten > classes of signs) is not obvious because they are not written > sequentially on a line. Yet, to respect the logic of phaneroscopic > categories, the only possible order is to start with the object (top left), > then the representamen (bottom), and finally the interpretant (top > right). Not only is this not the order in which Peirce mentions them in > CP 8.376 (where, as underlined in the attached document), he mentions the > object, then the interpretant, and then the representamen that he calls > « the sign itself »), but more