[peirce-l] Sinsign, Legisign, Qualisign - help!

2006-06-24 Thread Jerry LR Chandler

Gary, Ben, List:

Thank you for the responses to my questions.  Your answers persuade  
me that my questions were not crisp and hence not very generative.   
BTW, I try to make it a habit to use logical terms in the sense of  
their roots in Latin or Greek, hence my use of the term category  
was in the wide sense.


It seems from this and subsequence discussions on the list, that I  
failed to weigh the depth of effort to trichotomize decision logic in  
Peirce's writings adequately.  The use of the term divisible in  
reference to natural languages terms is rare and I find it quite  
difficult to interpret.  I find it rather difficult to think of  
common language as a source of terms that can be divided into three.   
This sentiment certainly comes out of respect for the concept of  
arithmetic  operations.


The design of the trichotomies in chemical structures is a relatively  
simple task in that each trichotomy of material origin is signified  
by the identities of three different elements.  For each of the three  
elements, concrete evidence must be obtained that exhibits the  
present of that element in the compound.  For example, any chemical  
structure that contains only carbon, hydrogen and oxygen is a sign.  
This tactic for generating chemical trichotomies is not readily  
extended to natural terms.  How would one show that a particular term  
has three extensions?  Even a superficial examination of a dictionary  
shows that many, perhaps the majority of words have more than three  
meanings attached.


Of course, one could assume that the categorization into trichotomies  
is not a general logical operation.  Perhaps it is only a local  
operation that is restricted to some fraction of the terms.  How  
would one identify such a fraction of the potential terms?  The image  
of a commutative diagram comes to mind but...


From a mathematical perspective, the richness of the combinatorial  
possibilities is daunting.  How does one ensure consistency within  
trichotomies in the absence of concrete grammars that generate  
Porphyrean trees?


I will be at the Whitehead Conference in Salzburg next week so I do  
not anticipate much time for replies.  At least for the Salzburg  
papers, I am going to restrict my remarks to comparison of   
synthetic symbol systems, although I continue to hope that Peirce  
had something useful to say to modern chemical logic.


Cheers

Jerry







On Jun 21, 2006, at 1:05 AM, Peirce Discussion Forum digest wrote:


Subject: Re: Sinsign, Legisign, Qualisign - help!
From: Benjamin Udell [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2006 18:14:24 -0400
X-Message-Number: 10

Jerry, Gary, list,


A number of recent posts have addressed the topics of:



On Jun 19, 2006, at 1:05 AM, Peirce Discussion Forum digest wrote:
Re: Sinsign, Legisign, Qualisign



I am seeking help in understanding the importance of these terms to =

individual scholars.

The definitions are reasonably clear, at least to me.
At issue is the question of why are these terms important to =

understanding human communication.

To Peirce, logical process =3D representational process, and is not  
a =

specifically human or intelligent-life phenomenon, a chapter in the =
books of psychology, sociology, history, even if these books covered =
reasoning creatures other than homo sapiens which is the only clear =
example of which we know (SETI hasn't found ET, at least not yet). =20

Instead, to Peirce, humans are a special logical phenomenon -- he  
might =

assent to a current phrase like logic processors though not in the =
computer sense (deductive, with strict algorithms, etc.). For my  
part, I =
would say that logicality is general like statisticality or (in  
the =

information-theoretic sense) information.

So these terms (signsign, legisign, qualisign) are important in =
understanding the logical possibilities which human communication  
tends =

to actualize. IMHO the importance is not so very different from the =
importance of aerodynamics to the evolution and anatomy of winged =
insects, pterosaurs, birds, bats, flying organisms generally. But I =
think that a more exact analogy would be the relationship of =
probability, statistics, and, as a general mathematical   
statistical =

subject, stochastic processes, to matter.=20

In the Peircean system, terms like qualisign/sinsign/legisign are  
also =
important, or regarded as destined to be important, in  
understanding the =

possibilities realized in metaphysics -- questions of ontology, =
questions of God, freedom, immortality, and (philosophical)  
questions of =
space, time, matter, etc. This is implicit in Peirce's  
classification of =

logic as a field which does not presuppose metaphysics but which is =
presupposed by metaphyiscs.

The appending of three unusual prefixes to the concept of a sign  
is =

clearly a creative use of language.
The apparent (mechanical) objective is to form three new  
categories as =

derivatives of the parent 

[peirce-l] Sinsign, Legisign, Qualisign - help!

2006-06-19 Thread Jerry LR Chandler


To List:

A number of recent posts have addressed the topics of:

On Jun 19, 2006, at 1:05 AM, Peirce Discussion Forum digest wrote:


Re: Sinsign, Legisign, Qualisign


I am seeking help in understanding the importance of these terms to  
individual scholars.


The definitions are reasonably clear, at least to me.

At issue is the question of why are these terms important to  
understanding human communication.


The appending of three unusual prefixes to the concept of a sign is  
clearly a creative use of language.


The apparent (mechanical) objective is to form three new categories  
as derivatives of the parent word, sign.


Could one imagine other prefixes  to the word sign?

Could one imagine more than three other prefixes?

How is this context important in distinguishing among paths of usages?

What other terms might be substituted for these terms?

Do these terms impact the concept of a grammar?

Is this ad hoc extension of the concept of sign desirable for  
mathematics?


How does it contribute to the mathematical usages of signs?

Is it desire to bring the concept of 'many' into the concept of  
'sign' in this manner?  Why?


I presume that many readers of this list are teachers and have  
lectured on these terms. I have been struggling with these terms for  
some time and hope that knowledgable Peircian students can explain  
the importance of this seemingly disconnected usage of grammar from  
various perspectives.


Cheers

Jerry 


---
Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber archive@mail-archive.com



[peirce-l] Sinsign, Legisign, Qualisign

2006-06-05 Thread Drs.W.T.M. Berendsen








Dear list,



Currently I am very interested in the notions of
sinsign, legisign and qualisign. I know there have been discussions about this
before, with phrases out of texts from CS Peirce defining these terms. What I however
would like to know, is in what texts (preferably from the essential peirce
12 since I have these) from Peirce and also in what texts of other
scientists explaining his notions, it is best explained what these notions are
all about.





I am looking for texts or combinations of texts where
these notions are explained as complete as possible.



Kind regards,



Wilfred Berendsen








---
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: 268.8.1/355 - Release Date: 2-6-2006
 

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.8.1/355 - Release Date: 2-6-2006