Re: [PEIRCE-L] qualisigns
List: > > JAS: For example, my speculative grammar does not include qualisigns at all, > for the reason that I already stated--a quality in itself cannot represent > something else as its object, it can only present itself. > > The sign of an object is represented by qualisigns as metrics of existence. These are grammatical predicates by the following logical assertion: The sin-sign has the qualisigns of x1, x2, x3,…as properties or attributes as determined by metrics or immediate sensory experiences. The assertion: "The index of the sin-sign (subject of a proposition) asserts the metrics of the descriptive attributes of the sin-sign” if the arguments are founded on the bedrock of CSP writings, ie, the chemical sciences. The assertion: "The grammar of an argument connects the syntax of the indices with the sin-sign and its predicates with a necessary copula” is necessary to relate atoms to molecules. I suggest that CSP was consistent in his deployment of the triadic grammatical relatives (subject, copula, predicate). Can these notions be embedded into your careful scientific readings of CSP texts? Obviously, these mappings are remote from the compositional mathematics associated with a particular modern geometric form of category theory. But, please note that CSP was expert on the simple metrics of matter as “Sums” and “Products” necessary for the spontaneity of relations among relatives, such as 2 H2 + O2 —< 2 H2O. And, also please note, that modern geometric forms of category theory depends on structural mathematical developments grounded in Principia Mathmetica. Obviously, CSP’s work was decades before these structural mathematical developments. CSP used chemical category theories to assert his syntax through indices and the copula necessary to generate the dicisign, did he not? Cheers Jerry - 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 the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
Re: [PEIRCE-L] qualisigns
Jon Alan, Novel phenomena give rise to a situation of doubt because there is no habit associated with that phenomenon. I want to have the posibility to talk about the formation of new habits. Only allowing habit change is too limited. JAS: I am again having trouble making sense of the rest of the post below. I must admit that I did not state the intention. I projected box-x on the Bense scheme in order to show what you miss if you deny qualisigns. is the logical situation in which any given interpreter (taken as a varable) still does not know what situation (s)he is dealing with (TT, TF, FT or FF) when a sign (taken as a variable) inscribes itself on the sheet. In other words it describes a situation of doubt that is to be resolved in belief (whether true or false) on which it is possible to act. And, I used the opportunity to argue in favor of an alpha, beta and gamma part of semiotics. The tinctures of the gamma part of EG were very helpful for me. Enabling the projection of the intentional and the eventual interpretant on a cominterpretant. For instance, the color of the dot indicating and distinguishing the different universes of discourse brought together. The relation of logic and semiotic is a very complicated one in my opinion. We have the utens and the docens of mathematical logic, and we have the sub-division Speculative Grammar, Critic and Rhetoric. We have to be conscious of the branch Peirce is writing in, if we want to decide the meaning of a term. In speculative grammar we talk about the mode of adress of term, proposition and argument. In critic we talk about composition, construction, truth and validity of terms, props and arguments. This may easily lead to misunderstanding. I think that Peirce's experiments with terms like seme, pheme/dicent and doleme are an attempt to avoid possible misunderstandings. The architectonic ordering: mathematics, including fromal logic [logic], phenemenology, speculative grammar [small classification], critic [logic], rethoric [welby classification], shows a layered approach to the relation of logic, as we know it as an academic discipline and semiotic. Best, Auke > Op 2 mei 2020 om 3:35 schreef Jon Alan Schmidt : > > Auke, List: > > I did not say that doubt is a habit, I said that a belief is a habit (of > conduct), such that "the resolution of doubt into belief" is a habit-change. > > Since I deny that a quality in itself can be a sign of anything other > than itself--which is trivial, since everything is a sign of itself--I also > deny that there can be "collections of qualisigns." As I said before, I > instead hold that there are tones embodied in tokens--"indefinite significant > character[s] such as a tone of voice" (CP 4.537, 1906)--which influence the > dynamical interpretants that those tokens determine. > > I am again having trouble making sense of the rest of the post below. I > will only point out that phaneroscopy is not "in between" logic and semeiotic > in Peirce's architectonic, unless "logic" here refers to strictly > formal/mathematical logic and not the normative science of logic (CP 4.240, > 1902); the latter, of course, is semeiotic (CP 1.191, 1903). In phaneroscopy > we discern three irreducible elements in all phenomena, but only mediation > (3ns) is associated with signs. Qualities (1ns) and reactions (2ns) are also > present to the mind, but not as signs. Instead, we employ signs to think > about them subsequent to perceiving them, and this "cognitive resultant of > our past lives" constitutes our accumulated experience (CP 2.84, 1902). > > Regards, > > Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA > Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran > Laymanhttp://www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt > -http://twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt > > On Fri, May 1, 2020 at 8:47 AM Auke van Breemen < a.bree...@chello.nl > mailto:a.bree...@chello.nl > wrote: > > > > > > Jon Alan, List, > > > > I think that by now our discussion about interpretants has been > > carried trough to a sufficient degree. In the sense that the respective > > positions have been clarified as far as possible and no further gain is to > > be expected. > > > > Yust one note about doubt supposed to be a habit. The method to > > resolve doubt can be called a habit (tenacity, etc.). But doubt itself is a > > secondness, a resistance, just like a tooth ache. Somewhere in the semiotic > > fabric a door proved shut and an interpretation process couldn't be > > completed satisfactory. Semiotics provides a strategy to systematically > > inspect the process and indicate where the obstruction resides and what to > > look for as a remedy. > > > > I only consider one subject deserving further discussion: > > qualisigns. It surprises me that you omit them. > > > > JAS: For example, my speculative grammar does not inclu
Re: [PEIRCE-L] qualisigns
Auke, List: I did not say that doubt is a habit, I said that a belief is a habit (of conduct), such that "the resolution of doubt into belief" is a habit-change. Since I deny that a quality *in itself* can be a sign of anything other than itself--which is trivial, since everything is a sign of itself--I also deny that there can be "collections of qualisigns." As I said before, I instead hold that there are *tones *embodied in tokens--"indefinite significant character[s] such as a tone of voice" (CP 4.537, 1906)--which influence the dynamical interpretants that those tokens determine. I am again having trouble making sense of the rest of the post below. I will only point out that phaneroscopy is not "in between" logic and semeiotic in Peirce's architectonic, unless "logic" here refers to strictly formal/mathematical logic and not the normative science of logic (CP 4.240, 1902); the latter, of course, *is* semeiotic (CP 1.191, 1903). In phaneroscopy we discern three irreducible elements in all phenomena, but only mediation (3ns) is associated with signs. Qualities (1ns) and reactions (2ns) are also present to the mind, but not *as signs*. Instead, we employ signs to *think about* them subsequent to perceiving them, and this "cognitive resultant of our past lives" constitutes our accumulated *experience *(CP 2.84, 1902). Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt On Fri, May 1, 2020 at 8:47 AM Auke van Breemen wrote: > Jon Alan, List, > > I think that by now our discussion about interpretants has been carried > trough to a sufficient degree. In the sense that the respective positions > have been clarified as far as possible and no further gain is to be > expected. > > Yust one note about doubt supposed to be a habit. The method to resolve > doubt can be called a habit (tenacity, etc.). But doubt itself is a > secondness, a resistance, just like a tooth ache. Somewhere in the semiotic > fabric a door proved shut and an interpretation process couldn't be > completed satisfactory. Semiotics provides a strategy to systematically > inspect the process and indicate where the obstruction resides and what to > look for as a remedy. > > I only consider one subject deserving further discussion: qualisigns. It > surprises me that you omit them. > > JAS: For example, my speculative grammar does not include qualisigns at > all, for the reason that I already stated--a quality in itself cannot > *represent > *something else as its object, it can only *present *itself. > > --- > > As a side remark I wrote "collection of qualities" and not just "quality". > > You hit the hammer on the nail! Exactly. The question is: To what do they > present themselves? > > In analysis mode continuing. Collections of qualisigns present themselves > to an interpreting thought in development, by being taken as a sign for > some object. - I use the stages Sarbo and farkas introduced- > > First step is sorting, i.e. It gets severed from the interpreting sheet by > appearing as a one time (with an indefinite beginning and end, etc.) iconic > form (icon aspect, collection of qualities) written on the sheet (sinsign > aspect). > > Next comes abstraction. The form proves (un)familiar to the sheet > (legisign aspect or doubt), but the completion of the process also depend > on the interpretative interpretational possibilities a (un)familiar form > offers to this sheet (Rheme aspect). > > By the way. I always regarded Claudio's nonagons to deal with this > rhematic aspect. In short and incomplete: Take the Bense diagramm of the 9 > sign aspects. Take something you are interested in. Claudio has a very nice > one on color. Put color in the index position and start pondering color > from the point of view of the different sign aspects. Like KiF, it is like > doing a sudoku. A fascinating feat is the possibility to drill down in each > field in order to arrange the items you found. In KiF you only drill down > in the index position, in order to explicates the sub-processes, needed for > completion of the process. > > Next completion. The legisign may be indexically connected with a symbol, > like for example 'horse'. Lets just stick to part of a lexicon as rhematic > possibilities of the sign and take 1. an animal and 2. a gymnastics device. > Depending on the context the sheet is in, one of these possibilities (only > potentially present) will surface (dynamical interpretant aspect). If the > habit fits the situation, we have a satisfying result. As a side result, > the normal interpretant gets strenghtend. > > How could we arive there, if the qualisigns did not present themselves? > > it is of interest to note that already in 1868 Peirce remarked that `[. . > . ] in no instant in my state of mind there is cognition or representation, > but in the relation of different instants there is.' [...] the immediate > (
Re: [PEIRCE-L] qualisigns
Jon Alan, List, I think that by now our discussion about interpretants has been carried trough to a sufficient degree. In the sense that the respective positions have been clarified as far as possible and no further gain is to be expected. Yust one note about doubt supposed to be a habit. The method to resolve doubt can be called a habit (tenacity, etc.). But doubt itself is a secondness, a resistance, just like a tooth ache. Somewhere in the semiotic fabric a door proved shut and an interpretation process couldn't be completed satisfactory. Semiotics provides a strategy to systematically inspect the process and indicate where the obstruction resides and what to look for as a remedy. I only consider one subject deserving further discussion: qualisigns. It surprises me that you omit them. JAS: For example, my speculative grammar does not include qualisigns at all, for the reason that I already stated--a quality in itself cannot represent something else as its object, it can only present itself. --- As a side remark I wrote "collection of qualities" and not just "quality". You hit the hammer on the nail! Exactly. The question is: To what do they present themselves? In analysis mode continuing. Collections of qualisigns present themselves to an interpreting thought in development, by being taken as a sign for some object. - I use the stages Sarbo and farkas introduced- First step is sorting, i.e. It gets severed from the interpreting sheet by appearing as a one time (with an indefinite beginning and end, etc.) iconic form (icon aspect, collection of qualities) written on the sheet (sinsign aspect). Next comes abstraction. The form proves (un)familiar to the sheet (legisign aspect or doubt), but the completion of the process also depend on the interpretative interpretational possibilities a (un)familiar form offers to this sheet (Rheme aspect). By the way. I always regarded Claudio's nonagons to deal with this rhematic aspect. In short and incomplete: Take the Bense diagramm of the 9 sign aspects. Take something you are interested in. Claudio has a very nice one on color. Put color in the index position and start pondering color from the point of view of the different sign aspects. Like KiF, it is like doing a sudoku. A fascinating feat is the possibility to drill down in each field in order to arrange the items you found. In KiF you only drill down in the index position, in order to explicates the sub-processes, needed for completion of the process. Next completion. The legisign may be indexically connected with a symbol, like for example 'horse'. Lets just stick to part of a lexicon as rhematic possibilities of the sign and take 1. an animal and 2. a gymnastics device. Depending on the context the sheet is in, one of these possibilities (only potentially present) will surface (dynamical interpretant aspect). If the habit fits the situation, we have a satisfying result. As a side result, the normal interpretant gets strenghtend. How could we arive there, if the qualisigns did not present themselves? it is of interest to note that already in 1868 Peirce remarked that `[. . . ] in no instant in my state of mind there is cognition or representation, but in the relation of different instants there is.' [...] the immediate (and therefore in itself insusceptible of mediation -the Unanalyzable, the Inexplicable, the Unintellectual ) runs in a continuous stream through our lives. W. II, p. 22730 The step from stating that the unanalyzable runs in a coninuous stream through our lives, to the statement that qualisigns enter the interpretational process by emerging on the Semiotic Sheet as an sinsign/icon adressing rheme and legisign, is not that great. In box-x, the model Peirce created to generate the 16 booleans. First step take an x and put 00, 10, 10 and 11 in the 4 compartments. Step 2, repeat step one in each section, prefix the value we already have in that compartment. Let express the unintellectual, the unknowable that runs in a continuous stream through our lives (qualisigns) And let express all that can possibly be expressed by a sign, whether true or false in any assumed universe. Over and against any cognition, there is an unknown but knowable reality; but over against all possible cognition, there is only the selfcontradictory. Writings II, p. 208 hen, box-x can be regarded as expressing what is logically involved in the process that runs from doubt to belief. Rotate the diamond and we get the Bense diagram, with qualisigns at the position and at the argument position and we established a link with the work of Claudio. Rotate again to its original position and we have KiF with the sign aspects on the nodes. >From the point of view of architectonics here we have a nice example of how >logic and semiotic are related. The former delivering the principles, the >latter the matter. Phaneroscopy inbetween, onl
