[peirce-l] Re: Sinsign, Legisign, Qualisign
So why would the word “red” be a symbol??? To me it is also not. I would regard the word “red” more as being a qualisign, which then would also fit the last sentence below. To me the word “red” can not be a sinsign since it is not an actual existing thing or event. And to me a quality (like red) can also not be a legisign. But I might be wrong. Of course. Wilfred Van: Benjamin Udell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Verzonden: dinsdag 13 juni 2006 9:51 Aan: Peirce Discussion Forum Onderwerp: [peirce-l] Re: Sinsign, Legisign, Qualisign . If the same rules hold for these 10 trichotomies as for the three, then it would appear, for instance, that all symbols are copulants. Copulants "neither describe nor denote their Objects, but merely express… logical relations"; for example "If--then--"; "--causes--." That seems like it just must be wrong. Then a symbol like the word "red" couldn't be a symbol, instead, since it's descriptive, it can be a legisign, a sinsign, or a qualisign, but in any case it has to be a descriptive abstractive iconic hypothetical sympathetic suggestive gratific rhematic assurance of instinct. That just can't be right. --- Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber archive@mail-archive.com -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.8.3/360 - Release Date: 9-6-2006 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.8.3/360 - Release Date: 9-6-2006
[peirce-l] Call for Participation: CS Tools Interoperability Workshop, ICCS, Aalborg, Sunday July 16
Twenty years ago, John Sowa had a dream: "All implementations of conceptual graphs that conform to the formal definition must, at the logical level, be isomorphic. Because of the isomorphism, it is possible to write conversion routines that map the data structures from one version to another. For example, output from the semantic interpreter could be sent to a formatter that displays the graphs as boxes and circles on a screen, to a theorem prover that does inferences from them, to a database system that stores and retrieves them, or to a language generator that translates them into some other language (natural or artificial)." (John Sowa and Eileen Way, Implementing a Semantic Interpreter Using Conceptual Graphs, IBM J.Res.Dev., 30(1):57-69, 1986). Two decades later, with our community having expanded to include many other conceptual structures formalisms and tools, and many new (Web)technologies having been introduced, the dream is still far from realized. However, on July 16, we are going to get a lot closer. We are proud to let you know that we have received many quality contributions to our call for papers for the CS Tool Interoperability Workshop. The workshop will start with a most interesting philosophical perspective on interoperability delivered by our keynote speaker, Gary Richmond, City University of New York. After that, 8 papers will be presented by representatives of groups that are confronted with a wide range of CS tool interoperability issues in practice. We conclude the day with quite some time for discussion on how to move our interoperability R&D agenda forward. We would also like to announce that there is going to be a follow-up workshop next year in Sheffield, so the generated momentum can be sustained. We invite all of you attending the conference to join this workshop, since it is very important for the future of our community that we get our tools to work with each other and information systems in the real world out there. Registration information can be found at: http://www.iccs-06.hum.aau.dk/tools.htm We are looking forward to a very inspiring day! Aldo de Moor Simon Polovina Harry Delugach, co-chairs Time: Event -- 10.00-10.15: Opening by the co-chairs 10.15-11.00: Keynote: Interoperability as Desideratum, Problem, and Process (Gary Richmond) Paper Session 1: 11.00-11.20: Enhancing Software Engineering with Trikonic for the Knowledge Systems Architecture of CG Tools (Craig Spence-Hill, Simon Polovina) 11.20-11.40: Experiences and Lessons from the Practical Interoperation of CharGer with SeSAm (Neil Brady, Simon Polovina, Dharmendra Shadija, Richard Hill) 11.40-12.00: OpenCG: An Open Source Conceptual Graph Representation (David Skipper, Harry Delugach) 12.00-13.30: Lunch Paper Session 2: 13.30-13.50: Prolog+CG: A Maintainer's Perspective (Ulrik Petersen) 13.50:14.10: Towards Benchmarks for Conceptual Graph Tools (Jean-François Baget, Olivier Carloni, Michel Chein, David Genest, Alain Gutierrez, Michel Leclère, Marie-Laure Mugnier, Eric Salvat, Rallou Thomopoulos) 14.10-14.30: BibSonomy: A Social Bookmark and Publication Sharing System (Andreas Hotho, Robert Jäschke, Christoph Schmitz, Gerd Stumme) 14.30-14.50: Tool Interoperability from the Trenches: the Case of DOGMA-MESS (Stijn Christiaens, Aldo de Moor) 14.50-15.10: Using an Automatically Generated Ontology to Improve Information Retrieval (Maxime Morneau, Guy Mineau, Dan Corbett) 15.10-15.30: Break 15.30-16.50: Discussion 16.50-17.00: Sum up & Close == e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] \\ phone +32-2-629 3518, fax +32-2-629 3819 STARLab home page: http://www.starlab.vub.ac.be/staff/ademoor/ \\ blog: http://growingpains.blogs.com/home/ Dr. Aldo de Moor, senior researcher STARLab, Vrije Universiteit Brussel Pleinlaan 2, Gebouw G-10, 1050 Brussels, Belgium == To post a message, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]. To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the command 'unsubscribe cg' in the message body. See http://news.gmane.org/gmane.comp.ai.conceptual-graphs for the mailing list archive. See http://conceptualgraphs.org for the Conceptual Graph Home Page. For help or administrative assistance, mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber archive@mail-archive.com
[peirce-l] Re: Sinsign, Legisign, Qualisign
Bernard, Ben and others": I think the quote from Peirce I gave earlier today justifies my reservations about the acceptance of the ten trichotomy scheme that Ben was working with, and my claim that there is no version of it which can simply be put forth as Peirce's considered and self-accepted view, I have no disagreement with your view of the importance of figuring out what the best or proper version of that should be, though. I am just warning people away from taking that version which occurs in the CP as the "definitive" one or as having some special status among the several versions he came up with, none of which can, in my opinion, be so regarded. So I don't see any real disagreement here unless you want to insist on the special value of that particular version. As regards your earlier post, though, which pertained rather to the question of why I did a diagram for that particular way of ordering the three trichotomies -- as distinct from the ten trichotomies -- when there were other options available, I am glad that you raised a question about that because I am not at all sure that I chose the best way of representing that, as regards the particular ordering relation (1,2,3), nor can I say immediately why I did so. It will take me at least another day, though, to think this through again by rereading my article closely again and also by going back to that material from the Syllabus on Logic which it was based upon and rethinking that. The more I look over the various ordering possibilities the more sense I get that there is something wrong but without being able yet to see precisely what. So let me simply stall you on that until I can answer intelligently and, if necessary, make a revision in my account. Tomorrow then, hopefully. Joe - Original Message - From: "Bernard Morand" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Peirce Discussion Forum" Sent: Wednesday, June 14, 2006 5:39 AM Subject: [peirce-l] Re: Sinsign, Legisign, Qualisign Joe and list, I agree with the idea of being very cautious with the 10 trichotomies classification. You are right I think in recalling that it was work in progress for Peirce. I would be very interested too in reading the material you are refering to below if you can make it available to the list in one way or the other. However, I think that your concluding sentence is excessively narrow when you write that 1) the theory did not reach any stable state and 2) it can't be reasonably represented as being Peirce's view. I would tend to comprehend such statements within a pessimistic view aiming at undervaluate what was at stake for an understanding of Peirce's semiotic. In fact your diagnosis could remain correct while what Peirce tried to clarify at the beginning of the century and during quite a decade could be of the utmost interest for semiotics. This is more or less my own view. In particular I think that if we manage to produce someday a sufficient account of signs theory in order that it be of practical usage in special sciences, such a sign theory will be informed by the 10 trichotomies system. I know that this statement will have to be justified but just an example: the study of concrete signs needs some concepts as the distinctions between immediate and dynamic objects, and betweeen the three interpretants too. From the theoretical point of view I am also convinced that the transition from the 3 trichotomies to 10 and the relation between the two kinds of systems deserves to be studied on the methodological level (pragmatism). Bernard Joseph Ransdell wrote: > Ben asks: > > "My basic question here is whether these structural relations are > correct or whether the ordering of the trichotomies "I, II, III, IV, > V, VI, VII, VIII, IX, X" is correct." > > REPLY: > The MS material in the logic notebook (MS 339) shows quite clearly > that Peirce did not regard himself as having arrived at anything he > could regard as satisfactory, as regards the ten trichotomies, as late > as Nov. 1 of 1909, and the two versions which he thought were -- at > best -- the least objectionable were ones he formulated on Oct 13th of > 1905 and March 31st of 1906. The version you are working with is from > an unsent draft of a letter to Welby of 1908, a year earlier than the > assessment just mentioned, and it differs in significant ways from the > versions he thought best though still unsatisfactory. The fact that > it appears in the Collected Papers gives it no special status since it > is really just discarded draft material. Take all talk about the ten > trichotomies with a VERY LARGE grain of salt, Ben, until we get > some effective and shared access to the relevant MS material. Of > course it is perfectly okay for people to do their own constructions > of the expanded set of trichotomies as they should have been > formulated, provided they are clear on the fact that this is their own > theory; but if the question is as to what Peirce's theory wa
[peirce-l] Re: Sinsign, Legisign, Qualisign
Thanks very much for the quote Joe. The last sentence puzzles me. Will have to think about it: seems like Peirce considered lately that he had earlier put erroneously some considerations related to the (dynamic) interpretant into his characterizations of the relation of the object to the sign. This is a common mistake that we all do everyday. Bernard Joseph Ransdell a ¨crit : Bernard says::, Joe and list, I agree with the idea of being very cautious with the 10 trichotomies classification. You are right I think in recalling that it was work in progress for Peirce. I would be very interested too in reading the material you are refering to below if you can make it available to the list in one way or the other. However, I think that your concluding sentence is excessively narrow when you write that 1) the theory did not reach any stable state and 2) it can't be reasonably represented as being Peirce's view. REPLY: I'll reply more extensively later in the day, Bernard, but the basis for my saying this is as follows, from MS 339D.662 (1909 Nov 1) =quote Peirce During the past 3 years I have been resting from my work on the Division of Signs and have only lately -- in the last week or two -- been turning back to it; and I find my work of 1905 better than any since that time, though the latter doubtless has value and must not be passed by without consideration. Looking over the book labelled in red "The Prescott Book," and also this one [the "Logic Notebook", MS 339], I find the entries in this book of "Provisional Classification of 1906 March 31st" and of 1905 Oct 13 particularly in imporant from my present (accidentally limited, no doubt) point of view; particularly in regard to the point made in the Prescott Book, 1909 Oct 21, and what immediately precedes that in that book but is not dated. Namely, a good deal of my early attempts to define this difference besween Icon, Index, & Symbol, were adulterated with confusion with the distinction as to the Reference of the Dynamic Interpretant to the Sign. end quote== Joe Ransdell --- Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber archive@mail-archive.com
[peirce-l] Re: No mental eyes of erst e'er hads't thou shone
Well, Gary, that's a rather dismissive comment. (This reminds of a time I once told a good friend one of Hopkins's poems was a tad bit "precious." He didn't speak to me for two months.) I'll just make a couple of comments and then let this go. If you want to argue that the poem is a significant poetic achievement, I think you have to talk about it as poetry. An assertion that the work contains interesting philosophical ideas doesn't really meet this necessary condition. (Of course, it may be that you have no interest in making the argument and wish simply to assert your aesthetic response to the poem.) Second, in any event, I would genuinely be interested in hearing what philosophical insights you have derived from repeated readings. Line-by-line explication would likely be the best way to go at this -- and the best way of restoring to the canon what you view as a neglected work. (The use of the gnomon as a figurative device is hardly peculiar to Peirce, by the way. Hugh Kenner titled a whole book after it, seeing it as a conceit that illuminated early modernist writing.) Cheers, Creath Thorne Gary Richmond writes: Thank you for your opinion. Gary csthorne wrote: "One of the great poetic achievements of the 19th century"? Surely you jest, sir. More appropriate descriptive adjectives might be: labored; plodding; syntactically crippled; full of pretense. A couple of lines -- "Thy entailed gnomon had not splayed as prone" and "Pale as the pallors tip this pile o' pillow" read like they were written by the Monty Python Troupe. This poem is not just bad, it is hilariously, over-the-top bad. Creath Thorne Gary Richmond writes: No mental eyes of erst e'er hads't thou shone; Thy entailed gnomon had not splayed as prone; Not, at all, fact borne ideas sprayed as grown, Nor Man as halo'd tower of nature known. Thy fearful lift's bed rock stepped arbor type-- Sight bearing wake's upholding spinelike gripe, In the last inhauling hall o' the endstead, down Where glues the gloomy swipe of night's tar frown And stays the rathe of day's eclipse, where lone, The moon gropes round in purblind monotone, For there her tender stars are dark as stone-- Now from the indrawn earth's sky-gauging billow Sees out about, through art tied back, they cone, Whose spread of insight beam far round out-thrown With wake each slippery rising peak doth crown Pale as the pallors tip this pile o' pillow. Charles S. Peirce (in Joseph Brent, Charles Sanders Peirce: A Life) Brent (330) says this poem "is interesting only because Peirce wrote it" while I consider it one of the great poetic achievements of the 19th century. Gary --- Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber [EMAIL PROTECTED] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- =-= - CCP Online, a national Internet Service Provider website: http://www.ccp.com -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- =-= - --- Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber [EMAIL PROTECTED] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= - CCP Online, a national Internet Service Provider website: http://www.ccp.com -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= - --- Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber archive@mail-archive.com
[peirce-l] CORRECTION for Peirce Seminar by Helmut Pape
Title: CORRECTION for Peirce Seminar by Helmut Pape Sorry, the date of the seminar got entered wrongly. It should be Tuesday, June 20. --Cornelis de Waal The Peirce Edition Project is pleased to present: Why Knowing about Individuals Matters Steps Toward a Peircean Methodology of Identical Signs By Helmut Pape University of Bamberg June 20 Abstract: The sciences and philosophy tend to have a one-eyed vision of knowledge: Its all theory, and the purer the better. Peircean pragmatism is an antidote to the idolatry of pure theory. In its dynamical picture of knowledge, theory is developed and corrected by its transformation into practical, detailed consequences about individuals. Therefore, Peirce’s account of indexical signs is not only just consistent with pragmatism, but supplies a detailed interpretation for this claim by showing that no empirical knowledge can be expressed without the use of indexical signs. This paper highlights a methodological reading of indexical signs by connecting them with a movement in the humanities (especially in Europe) that favors the evidential role of embodied meanings – of traces, clues, symptoms, as opposed to purely theoretical considerations. The lecture will be given on Tuesday June 20, at 5:30 pm at the Institute of American Thought in Room ES 0014. The institute is housed in the basement of the Education and Social Work building on the IUPUI campus, 902 West New York Street, Indianapolis. The Indianapolis Peirce Seminar meets on an irregular basis at the offices of the Peirce Edition Project. For more information, see http://www.iupui.edu/%7Epeirce/research/speakers.html Or contact Cornelis de Waal at [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Cornelis de Waal, Ph.D. Associate Editor, Peirce Edition Project http://www.iupui.edu/~peirce Assistant Professor and Graduate Director Department of Philosophy http://www.iupui.edu/~philosop/cdewaal.htm ADDRESS: Peirce Edition Project tel.: (317) 274-2171 902 West New York Street, ES 0010 fax.: (317) 274-2170 Indianapolis, IN 46202 - --- Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber archive@mail-archive.com
[peirce-l] Indianapolis Peirce Seminar by Helmut Pape
Title: Indianapolis Peirce Seminar by Helmut Pape The Peirce Edition Project is pleased to present: Why Knowing about Individuals Matters Steps Toward a Peircean Methodology of Identical Signs By Helmut Pape University of Bamberg May 21 Abstract: The sciences and philosophy tend to have a one-eyed vision of knowledge: Its all theory, and the purer the better. Peircean pragmatism is an antidote to the idolatry of pure theory. In its dynamical picture of knowledge, theory is developed and corrected by its transformation into practical, detailed consequences about individuals. Therefore, Peirce’s account of indexical signs is not only just consistent with pragmatism, but supplies a detailed interpretation for this claim by showing that no empirical knowledge can be expressed without the use of indexical signs. This paper highlights a methodological reading of indexical signs by connecting them with a movement in the humanities (especially in Europe) that favors the evidential role of embodied meanings – of traces, clues, symptoms, as opposed to purely theoretical considerations. The lecture will be given on Tuesday May 21, at 5:30 pm at the Institute of American Thought in Room ES 0014. The institute is housed in the basement of the Education and Social Work building on the IUPUI campus, 902 West New York Street, Indianapolis. The Indianapolis Peirce Seminar meets on an irregular basis at the offices of the Peirce Edition Project. For more information, see http://www.iupui.edu/%7Epeirce/research/speakers.html Or contact Cornelis de Waal at [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Cornelis de Waal, Ph.D. Associate Editor, Peirce Edition Project http://www.iupui.edu/~peirce Assistant Professor and Graduate Director Department of Philosophy http://www.iupui.edu/~philosop/cdewaal.htm ADDRESS: Peirce Edition Project tel.: (317) 274-2171 902 West New York Street, ES 0010 fax.: (317) 274-2170 Indianapolis, IN 46202 - --- Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber archive@mail-archive.com
[peirce-l] Re: RE : Re: Sinsign, Legisign, Qualisign
Title: Message Frances on Gilles to listers... These semiotic diagrams in the posted message and in the linked website are a welcome addition to the trichotomic topic, and will surely be the cause of much more reflection. The positing of "réel" for the "real" object is assumed here an adjective or label that holds the dynamic object to be an indirect thing inaccessible to sense, until it is related to a sign. This use of the term "real" however might be misleading, if it broadly means phenomenal or essential or existential, or even if it is a mere synonym that means factual or actual or material. My understanding of the term real and reality in Peirce is that if any phenomenal existent fact that may also be actually concrete is not sensed, then it is not yet real, at least not real to the mind that senses. The reality of a fact or object therefore is only as real as sense. If an object as a fact is not given to sense, then it is not real. Now, while it is true Peirce claims that an object must determine a sign, because signs after all are themselves simply objects, it is not clear to me whether it is the referring object in semiosis that does this, or does it for its own referent sign only, or must be real to do it, or must be sensible and sensed to do it. It seems the position here in the presented diagram is that the dynamic object of semiosis and semiotics is indeed real and the object that determines the very existence of the sign as related to the object. To speculate on Peircean intentions, one way around this problem of objects determining signs, whether the objects are sensed and real or not, might be to differentiate between synechastic objects and semiosic objects. This is for me to suggest that phenomenal synechastic objects continue to exist outside and even prior to acts of semiosis, thereby having the disposed potential for determining signs to exist as objects themselves but as signs of other semiosic objects, and this by the process of phenomenal representation. These synechastic objects might be held as representamen that are not signs. The phenomenal semiosic objects that are then found by sense to really exist inside acts of semiosis, thereby are referred by their own referent signs, and this also by the process of phenomenal representation. These semiosic objects might be held as representamen that are signs. The initiate synechastic object in acts of evolution thus has the purpose to determine the mere existence of the sign. The immediate semiosic object in semiosis, acting variously as a qualisign and sinsign and legisign, thus has the further purpose to determine the very real presence of a probable representing representamen or sign, acting variously as a potisign and actisign and famsign. The dynamic semiosic object in semiosis thus has the still further purpose to determine the main kind a real representamen or sign will be, as an icon or index or symbol. The act of determination, by an object towards itself as a sign of itself or another object, or by an object towards another object as a sign of itself or another object, is here understood by me to mean a determinate limit or a ground, but not a cause or a source. The purpose to act by any phaneron is here understood by me to mean a disposed tendency or inclined trait that the phenomenon is naturally compelled to conform with. - Original Message - From: Gilles Arnaud To: Peirce Discussion Forum Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, June 14, 2006 5:29 AM Subject: [peirce-l] RE : Re: Sinsign, Legisign, Qualisign bonjour, ma conception spéculative sur ce sujet : schéma de 8.334 http://perso.orange.fr/a/a/Peirce/le_signe_hexadique2.htm Les treillis de R.Marty : http://perso.orange.fr/a/a/Peirce/le_treillis.htm CordialementARNAUD Gilles --- Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber archive@mail-archive.com --- Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber archive@mail-archive.com
[peirce-l] Re: Sinsign, Legisign, Qualisign
Bernard says::, Joe and list, I agree with the idea of being very cautious with the 10 trichotomies classification. You are right I think in recalling that it was work in progress for Peirce. I would be very interested too in reading the material you are refering to below if you can make it available to the list in one way or the other. However, I think that your concluding sentence is excessively narrow when you write that 1) the theory did not reach any stable state and 2) it can't be reasonably represented as being Peirce's view. REPLY: I'll reply more extensively later in the day, Bernard, but the basis for my saying this is as follows, from MS 339D.662 (1909 Nov 1) =quote Peirce During the past 3 years I have been resting from my work on the Division of Signs and have only lately -- in the last week or two -- been turning back to it; and I find my work of 1905 better than any since that time, though the latter doubtless has value and must not be passed by without consideration. Looking over the book labelled in red "The Prescott Book," and also this one [the "Logic Notebook", MS 339], I find the entries in this book of "Provisional Classification of 1906 March 31st" and of 1905 Oct 13 particularly in imporant from my present (accidentally limited, no doubt) point of view; particularly in regard to the point made in the Prescott Book, 1909 Oct 21, and what immediately precedes that in that book but is not dated. Namely, a good deal of my early attempts to define this difference besween Icon, Index, & Symbol, were adulterated with confusion with the distinction as to the Reference of the Dynamic Interpretant to the Sign. end quote== Joe Ransdell -- Internal Virus Database is out-of-date. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.8.2/357 - Release Date: 6/6/2006 --- Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber archive@mail-archive.com
[peirce-l] AW: RE : Re: Sinsign, Legisign, Qualisign
Title: Message Dear Monsieur Arnaud, is it possible to get your article "Le signe hexadique" or similar articles or books in Englisch or German. With best wishes Karl-Hermann Schäfer Dortmund University -Ursprüngliche Nachricht-Von: Gilles Arnaud [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Gesendet: Mittwoch, 14. Juni 2006 11:30An: Peirce Discussion ForumCc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Betreff: [peirce-l] RE : Re: Sinsign, Legisign, Qualisign bonjour, ma conception spéculative sur ce sujet : schéma de 8.334 http://perso.orange.fr/a/a/Peirce/le_signe_hexadique2.htm Les treillis de R.Marty : http://perso.orange.fr/a/a/Peirce/le_treillis.htm CordialementARNAUD Gilles --- Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber archive@mail-archive.com
[peirce-l] Re: Sinsign, Legisign, Qualisign
Joe and list, I agree with the idea of being very cautious with the 10 trichotomies classification. You are right I think in recalling that it was work in progress for Peirce. I would be very interested too in reading the material you are refering to below if you can make it available to the list in one way or the other. However, I think that your concluding sentence is excessively narrow when you write that 1) the theory did not reach any stable state and 2) it can't be reasonably represented as being Peirce's view. I would tend to comprehend such statements within a pessimistic view aiming at undervaluate what was at stake for an understanding of Peirce's semiotic. In fact your diagnosis could remain correct while what Peirce tried to clarify at the beginning of the century and during quite a decade could be of the utmost interest for semiotics. This is more or less my own view. In particular I think that if we manage to produce someday a sufficient account of signs theory in order that it be of practical usage in special sciences, such a sign theory will be informed by the 10 trichotomies system. I know that this statement will have to be justified but just an example: the study of concrete signs needs some concepts as the distinctions between immediate and dynamic objects, and betweeen the three interpretants too. From the theoretical point of view I am also convinced that the transition from the 3 trichotomies to 10 and the relation between the two kinds of systems deserves to be studied on the methodological level (pragmatism). Bernard Joseph Ransdell wrote: Ben asks: "My basic question here is whether these structural relations are correct or whether the ordering of the trichotomies "I, II, III, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII, IX, X" is correct." REPLY: The MS material in the logic notebook (MS 339) shows quite clearly that Peirce did not regard himself as having arrived at anything he could regard as satisfactory, as regards the ten trichotomies, as late as Nov. 1 of 1909, and the two versions which he thought were -- at best -- the least objectionable were ones he formulated on Oct 13th of 1905 and March 31st of 1906. The version you are working with is from an unsent draft of a letter to Welby of 1908, a year earlier than the assessment just mentioned, and it differs in significant ways from the versions he thought best though still unsatisfactory. The fact that it appears in the Collected Papers gives it no special status since it is really just discarded draft material. Take all talk about the ten trichotomies with a VERY LARGE grain of salt, Ben, until we get some effective and shared access to the relevant MS material. Of course it is perfectly okay for people to do their own constructions of the expanded set of trichotomies as they should have been formulated, provided they are clear on the fact that this is their own theory; but if the question is as to what Peirce's theory was it can only be said that it was work in progress which never arrived at a reasonably stable developed state and which cannot reasonably be represented as being his view. Joe Ransdell --- Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber archive@mail-archive.com
[peirce-l] RE : Re: Sinsign, Legisign, Qualisign
Title: Message bonjour, ma conception spéculative sur ce sujet : schéma de 8.334 http://perso.orange.fr/a/a/Peirce/le_signe_hexadique2.htm Les treillis de R.Marty : http://perso.orange.fr/a/a/Peirce/le_treillis.htm CordialementARNAUD Gilles clip_image002.gif Description: Binary data --- Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber archive@mail-archive.com
