Jon, List,
Thank you! It will take some time for me to read and understand your wikipedia text, about the time it takes you to write 100 more texts. People have different capacities, I am looking forward to next life. Buuut, every effort will pay off, somehow, somewhen, and be it in the next life. And reading it is working even for me, it is very understandable and didactical! Thank you! Maybe with some routine I will not lose it so often, and not have always to look back and read things again.
In the moment, I am fighting also to understand, how the 28, not to speak about the 66, sign classes are constructed. How the ten classes are constructed is easy, there are 3 rows and 3 columns. Lines go up and square, never down (from left to right). But with including immediate, dynamic, and final properties, you have three columns, the first (signs) with 3, the second (objectrels) with 6, and the third (interpretantrels) with 9 elements. I am fumbling around with these all, but donot meet the number 28. All say, three trichotomies make 10 classes, six make 28, of course, for granted, why not, crystal-clear. But how. And what are the names of these 28 classes? Is there e.g. a finally rhematic dynamically indexical legisign? And an example for it?
Best,
Helmut
06. Mai 2020 um 19:48 Uhr
"Jon Awbrey" <jawb...@att.net>wrote:
Re: > Does there exist a text for dummies?
Once I was a dummy ...
and then I read Peirce's 1870 Logic Of Relatives ...
• https://oeis.org/wiki/Peirce%27s_1870_Logic_Of_Relatives_%E2%80%A2_Overview
and I gradually became ... long time passing ... slightly less of a dummy ...
There's a lot in Peirce's paper and my commentary on it
about relational composition, most of it in the sections
headed "The Signs for Multiplication".
There is also this article:
• https://oeis.org/wiki/Relation_composition
If you want to skip to the chase for the quickest possible overview,
the sorts of pictures that float through my head when I'm thinking
about relational composition are the bigraph pictures in this part:
• https://oeis.org/wiki/Relation_composition#Graph-theoretic_picture
Regards,
Jon
On 5/6/2020 12:51 PM, Helmut Raulien wrote:
> Jon, List,
> Thank you, Jon! I do have to say, that have had a concept of composition, of
> which Robert and Jon A.S. said it is not good, and it rather is all about
> determination and correlates. The concept of composition was, that a secondness
> would consist of two, and a thirdness of three parts, and this would go on
> eternally. Like, for example, a dynamic object (2.2.) consists of (2.2.1.) and
> (2.2.2.). I thought, this would make sense, as there might be identified two
> parts of the dynamic object: Its conceptuality outside the sign, and its
> ontologic part (outside too).
> This way, there were 3, 6, 10, 15, 21, and so on parts. But the sign classes are
> not created this way, but by regarding determination of correlates, and this way
> there are 10, 28, 66 sign classes. How this is done, I have not yet understood.
> Does there exist a text for dummies?
> By comparing AB-AC-BC with SS-SO-SI, I thougt to have had identified the
> nonexistent OI- relation for a "missing link". In spite of the catchiness of
> this term, I have the hunch, that this my stream of consideration might be based
> on not having understood the signtree and the determination issue, and I should
> work on this understanding before. But nevertheless I am very much looking
> forward to your answer and the subject of projective reduction in case of the sign!
> Best,
> Helmut
>
> 05. Mai 2020 um 21:40 Uhr "Jon Awbrey" <jawb...@att.net> wrote:
> Helmut,
>
> I've been trying to get back to your message of 4/12/2020
> under the subject line "Categories and Speculative Grammar",
> but I'll reply under Robert's original subject line as the
> profusion of titles has been derailing my train of thought.
> Some of the material you allude to below has gone missing
> off the live web, and the fragments I can still find need
> a bit of reformatting, so I'll go address those issues and
> return to these questions as soon as I can.
>
> Regards,
>
> Jon
>
> On 4/12/2020 3:21 PM, Helmut Raulien wrote:> Jon, All,
>> I vaguely remember about irreducibility and reducibility something like, that
>> a triad is compositionally (or another adverb with "c") not reducible to dyads,
>> but projectively is, usually, the triad being ABC, to AB, BC, and AC. Now, in
>> the case of sign it is different: The (projective or whatever) reducibility goes
>> SS, SO, SI. What is missing here, would be OI, at least in Peircean theory,
>> while in Ogden/Richard´s theory a relation between object and interptretant does
>> exist. I think it is called "meaning", obviously being some ontological thing,
>> while with Peirce a meaning without a sign´s partaking can not exist. I hope I
>> have not gotten it totally wrong now.
>> Anyway, I feel that a sign relation is a triadic relation, but a quite special
>> kind of such. Its special way of being able to be projectively reduced to dyads
>> opens ways of relations based on projection (or whatever) consisting of more
>> than three: Six, to start with, but really as many as you will, as every
>> secondness (DO, DI) may analytically be splitted into two more, and every
>> thirdness (FI) into three more.
>> Is that probably so?
>> Best,
>> Helmut
-----------------------------
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 .
Once I was a dummy ...
and then I read Peirce's 1870 Logic Of Relatives ...
• https://oeis.org/wiki/Peirce%27s_1870_Logic_Of_Relatives_%E2%80%A2_Overview
and I gradually became ... long time passing ... slightly less of a dummy ...
There's a lot in Peirce's paper and my commentary on it
about relational composition, most of it in the sections
headed "The Signs for Multiplication".
There is also this article:
• https://oeis.org/wiki/Relation_composition
If you want to skip to the chase for the quickest possible overview,
the sorts of pictures that float through my head when I'm thinking
about relational composition are the bigraph pictures in this part:
• https://oeis.org/wiki/Relation_composition#Graph-theoretic_picture
Regards,
Jon
On 5/6/2020 12:51 PM, Helmut Raulien wrote:
> Jon, List,
> Thank you, Jon! I do have to say, that have had a concept of composition, of
> which Robert and Jon A.S. said it is not good, and it rather is all about
> determination and correlates. The concept of composition was, that a secondness
> would consist of two, and a thirdness of three parts, and this would go on
> eternally. Like, for example, a dynamic object (2.2.) consists of (2.2.1.) and
> (2.2.2.). I thought, this would make sense, as there might be identified two
> parts of the dynamic object: Its conceptuality outside the sign, and its
> ontologic part (outside too).
> This way, there were 3, 6, 10, 15, 21, and so on parts. But the sign classes are
> not created this way, but by regarding determination of correlates, and this way
> there are 10, 28, 66 sign classes. How this is done, I have not yet understood.
> Does there exist a text for dummies?
> By comparing AB-AC-BC with SS-SO-SI, I thougt to have had identified the
> nonexistent OI- relation for a "missing link". In spite of the catchiness of
> this term, I have the hunch, that this my stream of consideration might be based
> on not having understood the signtree and the determination issue, and I should
> work on this understanding before. But nevertheless I am very much looking
> forward to your answer and the subject of projective reduction in case of the sign!
> Best,
> Helmut
>
> 05. Mai 2020 um 21:40 Uhr "Jon Awbrey" <jawb...@att.net> wrote:
> Helmut,
>
> I've been trying to get back to your message of 4/12/2020
> under the subject line "Categories and Speculative Grammar",
> but I'll reply under Robert's original subject line as the
> profusion of titles has been derailing my train of thought.
> Some of the material you allude to below has gone missing
> off the live web, and the fragments I can still find need
> a bit of reformatting, so I'll go address those issues and
> return to these questions as soon as I can.
>
> Regards,
>
> Jon
>
> On 4/12/2020 3:21 PM, Helmut Raulien wrote:> Jon, All,
>> I vaguely remember about irreducibility and reducibility something like, that
>> a triad is compositionally (or another adverb with "c") not reducible to dyads,
>> but projectively is, usually, the triad being ABC, to AB, BC, and AC. Now, in
>> the case of sign it is different: The (projective or whatever) reducibility goes
>> SS, SO, SI. What is missing here, would be OI, at least in Peircean theory,
>> while in Ogden/Richard´s theory a relation between object and interptretant does
>> exist. I think it is called "meaning", obviously being some ontological thing,
>> while with Peirce a meaning without a sign´s partaking can not exist. I hope I
>> have not gotten it totally wrong now.
>> Anyway, I feel that a sign relation is a triadic relation, but a quite special
>> kind of such. Its special way of being able to be projectively reduced to dyads
>> opens ways of relations based on projection (or whatever) consisting of more
>> than three: Six, to start with, but really as many as you will, as every
>> secondness (DO, DI) may analytically be splitted into two more, and every
>> thirdness (FI) into three more.
>> Is that probably so?
>> Best,
>> Helmut
-----------------------------
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 .
----------------------------- 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 .
