Re: [PEIRCE-L] Delta Existential Graphs (was The Proper Way in Logic)

[Jerry LR Chandler]

Jon:  

On review, this comment is of possible interest to a purist! 

> On Feb 27, 2024, at 12:26 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt  
> wrote:
> 
> JAS: Every explicitly scribed EG is a replica (instance), a sinsign (token) 
> of a peculiar kind that embodies a legisign (type).
> 
> JLRC: Frankly, I fail to find a connection between this stance regarding the 
> existential graphs and the prior development of the metaphysics of substance 
> of 1868. This reading of token and type is novel. 
> 
> Peirce does not introduce the terminology of qualisign/sinsign/legisign and 
> tone/token/type until 1903 and 1906, respectively, so I am puzzled by your 
> reference to something from nearly four decades earlier. In any case, there 
> is nothing novel about this reading, it is a well-known aspect of his 
> speculative grammar within the normative science of logic as semeiotic. 


The 1868 notions from metaphysics remain foundational today.  History has not 
not changed these foundational arguments and the organization of these semes 
and semantics.

Cheers
Jerry 

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
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.

[PEIRCE-L] Classifying Signs (was Mark Token Type)

[Jon Alan Schmidt]

Helmut, List:

HR: I think: A sign triad is an irreducible composition of the three
relations.


According to Peirce, the genuine triadic relation of representing or (more
generally) mediating has three correlates--the sign, its (dynamical)
object, and its (final) interpretant. This relation is *irreducibly *triadic,
such that it is not *composed *of its constituent dyadic relations,
although it *involves *the genuine dyadic relations between the sign and
its external correlates--its dynamical object, its dynamical interpretant,
and its final interpretant.

HR: Each of the three relations (if it may be said, that "the sign alone"
is a relation too, a relation between the sign and itself), are of one of
three classes so a sign triad it is a composition of classes.


According to Peirce, there is no trichotomy for the sign's *relation *with
itself. In his 1903 taxonomy, the first trichotomy is for the sign itself *as
a correlate*, while the second and third trichotomies are for the sign's
genuine dyadic *relations *with its (dynamical) object and (final)
interpretant. Together, these three trichotomies result in ten sign
classes, not "compositions of classes"--one class of qualisigns (later
tones), three classes of sinsigns (tokens), and six classes of legisigns
(types); three classes of icons, four classes of indices, and three classes
of symbols; six classes of rhemes (later semes), three classes of dicisigns
(phemes), and one class of arguments (delomes). In his 1906-1908
taxonomies, Peirce adds trichotomies for the other five correlates, the
sign's genuine dyadic relation with its dynamical interpretant, and the
genuine triadic relation. Together, these ten trichotomies *would *result
in 66 sign classes upon being arranged in their proper logical order of
determination, but Peirce himself never did this.

HR: But all this doesn´t mean, that between parallel classes (such as icon,
index, symbol) there is a gradient instead of a sharp distinction.


According to Peirce, one sign can be more or less iconic, indexical, or
symbolic than another sign--especially since all symbols *involve *indices
and icons, and all indices *involve *icons. Moreover, a sign can be
*predominately
*iconic while still having indexical and symbolic aspects, or
*predominately* indexical while still having symbolic aspects. On the other
hand, both tones as "indefinite significant characters" and types as
"definitely significant Forms" are *embodied *in tokens, such that every
type *involves* tokens (its instances) and every token *involves *tones.
Most (maybe all) of the other eight trichotomies in Peirce's 1906-1908
taxonomies are sharp distinctions, although the necessitant typically *involves
*the existent and the possible, and the existent *involves *the possible.
For example, every sign must be *either *a seme, a pheme, or a delome; but
all delomes *involve *phemes and semes, and all phemes *involve *semes.

Regards,

Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian
www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt / twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt

On Tue, Apr 16, 2024 at 11:33 AM Helmut Raulien  wrote:

>
> Jon, List,
>
> you wrote:
>
> "Classification is not *always *"either-or"--for example, Peirce's 1903
> trichotomy for classifying a sign according to its relation with its object
> is icon/index/symbol, yet this is a matter of degree instead of a sharp
> distinction. A *pure *icon would signify an interpretant without denoting
> any object, and a *pure *index would denote an object without signifying
> any interpretant, yet every sign by definition has *both *an object and
> an interpretant. That is why a symbol is a *genuine *sign, an index is a 
> *degenerate
> *sign, and an icon is a *doubly degenerate* sign (see EP 2:306-307, c.
> 1901)."
>
> I think: A sign triad is an irreducible composition of the three
> relations. Therefore e.g an index doesn´t come alone, it cannot be a "pure"
> one. So I donot see a point in guessing, what a pure icon would be like, it
> is not possible, can not exist. Each of the three relations (if it may be
> said, that "the sign alone" is a relation too, a relation between the sign
> and itself), are of one of three classes. so a sign triad it is a
> composition of classes. But all this doesn´t mean, that between parallel
> classes (such as icon, index, symbol) there is a gradient instead of a
> sharp distinction.
>
> Best regards, Helmut
>
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
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 

Aw: [PEIRCE-L] Mark Token Type

[Helmut Raulien]

 


Jon, List,

 

you wrote:

 

"Classification is not always "either-or"--for example, Peirce's 1903 trichotomy for classifying a sign according to its relation with its object is icon/index/symbol, yet this is a matter of degree instead of a sharp distinction. A pure icon would signify an interpretant without denoting any object, and a pure index would denote an object without signifying any interpretant, yet every sign by definition has both an object and an interpretant. That is why a symbol is a genuine sign, an index is a degenerate sign, and an icon is a doubly degenerate sign (see EP 2:306-307, c. 1901)."

 

I think: A sign triad is an irreducible composition of the three relations. Therefore e.g an index doesn´t come alone, it cannot be a "pure" one. So I donot see a point in guessing, what a pure icon would be like, it is not possible, can not exist. Each of the three relations (if it may be said, that "the sign alone" is a relation too, a relation between the sign and itself), are of one of three classes. so a sign triad it is a composition of classes. But all this doesn´t mean, that between parallel classes (such as icon, index, symbol) there is a gradient instead of a sharp distinction.


 

Best regards, Helmut


 

, 15. April 2024 um 19:47 Uhr
Von: "Jon Alan Schmidt" 
 



Helmut, List:

 


HR: I haven´t thoroughly followed the discussion about "mark", because I felt, that in this case the academic meaning (possibly a possible) differs too much from from the common meaning, in which a mark is an actual material sign, intended to be recognizable by anybody else.


 

Indeed, this common meaning of "mark" is one reason why I am concerned about using it as a substitute for tone/tuone/tinge/potisign as defined by Peirce--while such a possible sign must be embodied in an existent token in order to act as a sign, it is never itself "an actual material sign."

 


HR: Now I want to answer to JAS´ quote:


 

The subsequent quote is actually from JFS, not me (JAS), although I agree with the gist of it in accordance with synechism.

 


HR: Taxonomy is a kind of classification, and classification is "either-or".


 

Classification is not always "either-or"--for example, Peirce's 1903 trichotomy for classifying a sign according to its relation with its object is icon/index/symbol, yet this is a matter of degree instead of a sharp distinction. A pure icon would signify an interpretant without denoting any object, and a pure index would denote an object without signifying any interpretant, yet every sign by definition has both an object and an interpretant. That is why a symbol is a genuine sign, an index is a degenerate sign, and an icon is a doubly degenerate sign (see EP 2:306-307, c. 1901).

 


HR: BTW, determination, I´d say, is "if-then", from the "then" to the "if".


 

Determination in sign classification can be described using if-then, but not rigidly so. If the correlate or relation for one trichotomy is a necessitant, then the correlate or relation for the next trichotomy can be in any of the three universes; if it is an existent, then the next can be either existent or possible, but not necessitant; and if it is a possible, the the next is also a possible. That is why, in Peirce's 1903 taxonomy, a symbol can be an argument, dicisign, or rheme; an index can be a dicisign or rheme; and an icon is always a rheme.

 


HR: I added this, because I think, a certain kind of manifestation of the categories is composition (1ns), determination (2ns), and classification (3ns).


 

Peirce explicitly associates composition with 3ns, not 1ns--"[A] triadic relationship cannot be built up from dyadic relationships. Whoever thinks it can be so composed has overlooked the fact that composition is itself a triadic relationship, between the two (or more) components and the composite whole" (CP 6.321, c. 1907).

 

Regards,

 





Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA

Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian

www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt / twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt






 


On Sun, Apr 14, 2024 at 11:18 AM Helmut Raulien  wrote:



 


List,

 

I haven´t thoroughly followed the discussion about "mark", because I felt, that in this case the academic meaning (possibly a possible) differs too much from from the common meaning, in which a mark is an actual material sign, intended to be recognizable by anybody else.

Now I want to answer to JAS´ quote:

 


"But the overwhelming number of words in any natural language have no precise boundaries because there are no natural boundaries in the world itself.  Any attempt to legislate precise boundaries would be counter-productive because it would prevent the words from growing and shifting their meaning with changes over time.  Just consider the words 'car' and 'plow' in Peirce's day and today.  The things they apply to are so radically different that any precise definition in 1900 would be obsolete today."