Robert and Edwina,
I agree with both of you that the lattice is
more than a taxonomy. It shows the direction of the development of the
categories. It is active, not passive.
And I also believe that
Peirce's 1903 classification of the sciences is much more than a
taxonomy. The most important
Cf: Problems In Philosophy • 11
http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2020/11/09/problems-in-philosophy-11/
Re: Richard Saunders
https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2020/11/05/problems-in-philosophy-9/#comment-66196
RS: BTW I'm not sure I really see a distinction between descriptive
and normative
BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px; }
As I've written before, I find Marty's lattice an excellent outline
of the Peircean semiosis as a generative and dynamic process. . It
clearly shows how a relation in Firstness [eg iconic, rhematic]
simply repeats data, how a
List,
https://www.academia.edu/s/a91a59f285
*"It is a nice problem to say to what class a given sign belongs"*
CS Peirce 2.265, EP2 : 297
Abstract
This article is exclusively devoted to the subdivisions mentioned by Peirce
in CP 2.265. It shows that the lattice of the 10 classes of signs
Jon A> the question of Peirce's sources on Medieval and
Scholastic
Logic, especially with regard to 1st and 2nd and maybe 3rd
intentions.
Peirce's source for that distinction is Ockham's Summa
totius logicae.
His most important application is in the 1885
Algebra of Logic. He
adopted the term
