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

[Helmut Raulien]

Follow-up:

Please tell me, if it is not ok. to write a follow-up this way.

 

Well, I think it is possible to have a table of ten classes of relations, with close analogy to Peirce´s table of ten classes of signs. Maybe it not even is an analogy, but just a renaming. But I think, it makes clear, that you can use Peirce´s semiotics for systems theory and relations theory.

 

In the horizontal direction, instead of the correlates S, S-O, S-I relations, you have composition, determination, and classification. In the vertical direction you have the three kinds of each of these. These three kinds are, according to the categories, a qualitative kind, an actual (spatial/temporal) kind, and a mediative, functional kind.

 

Or maybe it would be better (initially just because of analogy, later, due to examples it may turn out to be better), to call the horizontally arranged elements composition, composition-determination-relation, and composition-classification-relation.

 

The way, ten classes of relations are possible, is the same way as with Peirce´s signs-table.

 

That is all, very simple. A paper about that so far would just be a plagiarism, but maybe later I will deliver some examples. Then we will see, whether the renamed table makes sense, or the known signs-table would do as well for these.

 

Best regards, Helmut

 

 

 
 
 

 18. April 2024 um 16:44 Uhr
Von: "Helmut Raulien" 
 




Dear All, Supplement:

I want to add, that my classification of relations is not an arbitrary idea, but it is derived after the Peircean categories: Though Peirce said, that composition is thirdness, I think that is because it is a relation. But, if i classify it as a kind of relation, I do so calling it firstness in this respect, determination 2ns, and classification 3ns. I did so, because a composition is the same from any point of view. Determination, 2ns, is different from two points, that of the determining agent and that of the determined one. And it might be regarded actual, even brute somehow. Classification has, maybe in different ways like the interpretant, three points of view, e.g. subclass, superclass, reason for classifying. And it has to do with mediation and representation somehow.

I further have catergorally classified composition in 1ns.: Composition of traits, this is 1ns, because you might also call it composition of qualities (this might even be better anyway). Spatiotemporal composition is 2ns, it suits to reaction and actuality. Functional composition is 3ns, it suits mediation. More specificly, these are 1ns of 1ns, 2ns of 1ns, 3ns of 1ns (because composition is 1ns).

How to further classify determination and classification I have not satisfyingly worked out yet. At the end there would result a table like that of the sign classes. Maybe it is even more general, because I think, that a sign is a composition (of sounds, patterns,...), an object a determining agent, and an interpretant a classification. Or you might say so about the three correlates sign, sign-object-relation, sign-interpretant relation.

The starting point of all this was Stanley N. Sathe´s paper "Salthe12Axiomathes", in which he described composition and subsumption as the two kinds of systems hierarchy. Subsumption, I think, is the relation between super- and subset in a classification. Or maybe it just is classification.

I hope, that with this analysing tool, derived from the Peircean categories, it is possible to specify relations, e.g. tell, what involution exactly is in some certain case, e.g. the way a sign triad involves the three correlates exactly is, that the triad´s quality is composed from the qualities of the correlates (qualities-composition, was traits-composition, you see for me the communication with you all helps).

Best regards, Helmut

 



Jon, List,

 

my ideas are all very tentative. Maybe composition, determination, classification are the three kinds of relation? These three kinds each have three kinds again, e.g. composition may be one of traits, spatiotemporal, or functional. So it might be possible, to talk more specificly, instead of saying "relation of relations of relations" e.g.: The ten classes of signs is (are as a whole) a classification of compositions of classes. More specifically, the first classification is a double one: ten possible classes versus 17 impossible ones, and the ten possible ones are further classified. The composition is the relation of the three correlates, this is a traits-composition, not a spatial one, as the DO is not close, and not a functional one, because the three correlates donot have a function, the function is irreducibly that of the triad. The last classification is having picked each correlate out of three respectively possibilities.

 

I have called it "traits-composition", not "properties-comp.", because in English "property" has two meanings, trait and ownership. It means, that not the relation, but only the traits of the relation are composed of the 

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

[Helmut Raulien]

 

 
 

supplement: I just googled involution, but it is something medicinical. So what´s the noun of to involve, is it involution, involvement, or involvation?



Jerry, List,

 

yes, but all that doesn´t  mean, that there isn´t a sharp distinction between classes. It just says, that classes can involve each other. But there still isn´t a gradient between the involving and the involved class, and neither one between two parallelly involved classes. The gradient is the degree of involution (quantitative), but not between the characteristics of e.g. indexicality and symbolicity (qualitative). For example, if there is a book about frogs with a chapter about toads in it, the topic is frogs, but the book involves toads, then there still is a sharp distinction between frogs and toads.

 

Best regards, Helmut

 
 

 19. April 2024 um 05:22 Uhr
Von: "Jerry LR Chandler" 
 


List, Jon:
 




On Apr 16, 2024, at 1:10 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt  wrote:
 



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.




Returning to the 1868 metaphysical definition of substance, one can attempt to ascribe names to substances following the rhetorical guidance that would presumably follow from the agency of these manufactured descriptors.  Note the three distinctions that CSP hypotheses for his metaphysics.

 

For example, I could attempt to assign the names of the ordered sequence of saturated hydrocarbons, methane, ethane, propane, butane, pentane, hexane, septane, octane, nonane, decane, and so forth.  (It is probable that CSP was aware of the relative compositions of these (the first ten) saturated hydrocarbons.). The molecular formula are given by the general formula, C(n)H(2n+2). 

 

Each of these substances has properties related to temperature, such as melting point or boiling point and flammability.

 

Each of these substances has a graph, a specific graph of the arrangement of the (n) + (2n+2) atoms in a pattern that was determined by methodologies of chemical ANALYSIS and SYNTHESIS.  Furthermore, in the late 1890’s, CSP produced a research article on acetylene, a related hydrocarbon that indicated he was knowledgable of the state of the art.  

 

Can you create any correlates between the categories ( 9, or 10, or 66 or any other integer) of the semantics you appear to believe in?  Or, are semantics merely rhetoric semantics for the sake of argument that can not be related to substances?

 

More generally, from a philosophical point of view, when and how will such terminology generate the agency need for pragmatic work of symbolic agency? 

 

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.





_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 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.



_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
ARISBE: THE 

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

[Helmut Raulien]

Jerry, List,

 

yes, but all that doesn´t  mean, that there isn´t a sharp distinction between classes. It just says, that classes can involve each other. But there still isn´t a gradient between the involving and the involved class, and neither one between two parallelly involved classes. The gradient is the degree of involution (quantitative), but not between the characteristics of e.g. indexicality and symbolicity (qualitative). For example, if there is a book about frogs with a chapter about toads in it, the topic is frogs, but the book involves toads, then there still is a sharp distinction between frogs and toads.

 

Best regards, Helmut

 
 

 19. April 2024 um 05:22 Uhr
Von: "Jerry LR Chandler" 
 


List, Jon:
 




On Apr 16, 2024, at 1:10 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt  wrote:
 



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.




Returning to the 1868 metaphysical definition of substance, one can attempt to ascribe names to substances following the rhetorical guidance that would presumably follow from the agency of these manufactured descriptors.  Note the three distinctions that CSP hypotheses for his metaphysics.

 

For example, I could attempt to assign the names of the ordered sequence of saturated hydrocarbons, methane, ethane, propane, butane, pentane, hexane, septane, octane, nonane, decane, and so forth.  (It is probable that CSP was aware of the relative compositions of these (the first ten) saturated hydrocarbons.). The molecular formula are given by the general formula, C(n)H(2n+2). 

 

Each of these substances has properties related to temperature, such as melting point or boiling point and flammability.

 

Each of these substances has a graph, a specific graph of the arrangement of the (n) + (2n+2) atoms in a pattern that was determined by methodologies of chemical ANALYSIS and SYNTHESIS.  Furthermore, in the late 1890’s, CSP produced a research article on acetylene, a related hydrocarbon that indicated he was knowledgable of the state of the art.  

 

Can you create any correlates between the categories ( 9, or 10, or 66 or any other integer) of the semantics you appear to believe in?  Or, are semantics merely rhetoric semantics for the sake of argument that can not be related to substances?

 

More generally, from a philosophical point of view, when and how will such terminology generate the agency need for pragmatic work of symbolic agency? 

 

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.




_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
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.

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

[Helmut Raulien]

 

 
 

Dear All, Supplement:

I want to add, that my classification of relations is not an arbitrary idea, but it is derived after the Peircean categories: Though Peirce said, that composition is thirdness, I think that is because it is a relation. But, if i classify it as a kind of relation, I do so calling it firstness in this respect, determination 2ns, and classification 3ns. I did so, because a composition is the same from any point of view. Determination, 2ns, is different from two points, that of the determining agent and that of the determined one. And it might be regarded actual, even brute somehow. Classification has, maybe in different ways like the interpretant, three points of view, e.g. subclass, superclass, reason for classifying. And it has to do with mediation and representation somehow.

I further have catergorally classified composition in 1ns.: Composition of traits, this is 1ns, because you might also call it composition of qualities (this might even be better anyway). Spatiotemporal composition is 2ns, it suits to reaction and actuality. Functional composition is 3ns, it suits mediation. More specificly, these are 1ns of 1ns, 2ns of 1ns, 3ns of 1ns (because composition is 1ns).

How to further classify determination and classification I have not satisfyingly worked out yet. At the end there would result a table like that of the sign classes. Maybe it is even more general, because I think, that a sign is a composition (of sounds, patterns,...), an object a determining agent, and an interpretant a classification. Or you might say so about the three correlates sign, sign-object-relation, sign-interpretant relation.

The starting point of all this was Stanley N. Sathe´s paper "Salthe12Axiomathes", in which he described composition and subsumption as the two kinds of systems hierarchy. Subsumption, I think, is the relation between super- and subset in a classification. Or maybe it just is classification.

I hope, that with this analysing tool, derived from the Peircean categories, it is possible to specify relations, e.g. tell, what involution exactly is in some certain case, e.g. the way a sign triad involves the three correlates exactly is, that the triad´s quality is composed from the qualities of the correlates (qualities-composition, was traits-composition, you see for me the communication with you all helps).

Best regards, Helmut

 



Jon, List,

 

my ideas are all very tentative. Maybe composition, determination, classification are the three kinds of relation? These three kinds each have three kinds again, e.g. composition may be one of traits, spatiotemporal, or functional. So it might be possible, to talk more specificly, instead of saying "relation of relations of relations" e.g.: The ten classes of signs is (are as a whole) a classification of compositions of classes. More specifically, the first classification is a double one: ten possible classes versus 17 impossible ones, and the ten possible ones are further classified. The composition is the relation of the three correlates, this is a traits-composition, not a spatial one, as the DO is not close, and not a functional one, because the three correlates donot have a function, the function is irreducibly that of the triad. The last classification is having picked each correlate out of three respectively possibilities.

 

I have called it "traits-composition", not "properties-comp.", because in English "property" has two meanings, trait and ownership. It means, that not the relation, but only the traits of the relation are composed of the traits of the correlates. Same with spatiotemporal and functional.

 

Well, this is tentative, an idea of which I am not sure whether or not it would be good to further pursue it. It makes everything more complicated, but maybe it is complicated?

 

Best regards, Helmut

 
 

 16. April 2024 um 20:10 Uhr
Von: "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) 

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

[Helmut Raulien]

Jon, List,

 

my ideas are all very tentative. Maybe composition, determination, classification are the three kinds of relation? These three kinds each have three kinds again, e.g. composition may be one of traits, spatiotemporal, or functional. So it might be possible, to talk more specificly, instead of saying "relation of relations of relations" e.g.: The ten classes of signs is (are as a whole) a classification of compositions of classes. More specifically, the first classification is a double one: ten possible classes versus 17 impossible ones, and the ten possible ones are further classified. The composition is the relation of the three correlates, this is a traits-composition, not a spatial one, as the DO is not close, and not a functional one, because the three correlates donot have a function, the function is irreducibly that of the triad. The last classification is having picked each correlate out of three respectively possibilities.

 

I have called it "traits-composition", not "properties-comp.", because in English "property" has two meanings, trait and ownership. It means, that not the relation, but only the traits of the relation are composed of the traits of the correlates. Same with spatiotemporal and functional.

 

Well, this is tentative, an idea of which I am not sure whether or not it would be good to further pursue it. It makes everything more complicated, but maybe it is complicated?

 

Best regards, Helmut

 
 

 16. April 2024 um 20:10 Uhr
Von: "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