List, Jon: The following quick summary of recent excitements here may be of some interest to the technically oriented subscribers of this list serve.
Recently, the logical roots of chemical notation were formed from applications of current methodologies of chemistry and molecular biology. The validity of the methodology has been demonstrated with tens of millions of compounds. My purpose was to identity the “differences that make the differences” between the symbolic logics of mathematics, physics, chemistry and genetics. This work was mentioned on this list serve in the early part of this century. The observation dependent / demonstrative methodology constructs the mathematical relationships from analysis of the qualisign and sin-sign to generate the legisign from the mathematical relations among the other six terms (signs). The key linguistic concepts are the vinculative connectives among the species of “taxonomies, syntax and syntagmata” and the correspondences with the “semiotic, semiosis and semantics.” I propose a “quaternary diagram” for assembly of quanta. The computations, applicable to any molecular-biological “sin-sign”, are simple arithmetics of the atomic numbers and valences represented as diagrams. The background was published in 2009 under the concept of the Perplex Number System.. (If of interest, see my accounts on Academia and Research Gate) The final interpretant is the precise syntagmatic chemical identity as a singular term constructed from the molecular formula. The two inverse square laws set the boundaries for the generating “functions” and guide the many to one step-wise construction. The Aristotelian conceptualizations of “analysis and synthesis” are necessary to validate the consequent logic in the laboratory by the usual pragmatic methodologies. It is crucial to note that the Fregean notion of abstraction (inferring first order predicate logic) is not consistent with this formal application of semiosis. Rather, the language of chemistry is an ad hoc copulative construction from the conceptualization of the Table of chemical elements. CSP papers on copula are off-target. The term logic is constrained to compositions and decompositions of atomicity. The manuscript is in preparation. No scientific need to address the CSP’s failed efforts, except perhaps for historical back-story and philosophical color. Finally, a very special “THANK YOU” to Ben Udell for some key contributions years and years ago that guided me toward the meaning of grammars. Edwina’s philosophical commentaries have glossed many a tricky issue. Cheers Jerry > On Jul 31, 2025, at 5:16 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt <[email protected]> > wrote: > > List: > > Since it has gotten quiet again, I will venture to reiterate and discuss > further the concluding statement of my previous post in this thread. > > JAS: My hypothesis is that the observed variety of the universe is unified > and explained by recognizing that the One root of all being--the identical > being of which all the different subjects within the universe partake--is the > being of a sign. > > A question naturally arises from this--what exactly is the being of a sign? > For one thing, as other List members have often correctly pointed out, any > sign that we prescind from the real and continuous process of semiosis as an > ens rationis cannot be accurately conceived as isolated. At a minimum, it > must always be connected with its object and (at least potential) > interpretant, as well as other signs. The nature of a sign is "essentially > triadic ... because three things are concerned in the functioning of a Sign; > the Sign itself, its Object, and its Interpretant" (CP 4.531, 1906). "3ns is > the mode of being of that which is such as it is, in bringing a second and > third into relation to each other. ... In its genuine form, 3ns is the > triadic relation existing between a sign, its object, and the interpreting > thought, itself a sign, considered as constituting the mode of being of a > sign. A sign mediates between the interpretant sign and its object" (CP > 8.328&332, SS 24&31, 1904 Oct 12). Hence, the mode of being of a sign per > se--not to be confused with its classification as a > qualisign/sinsign/legisign or tone/token/type--is 3ns as mediation. A portion > of a long excerpt from an unpublished manuscript that I recently provided in > the Spencer-Brown thread also seems relevant here. > > CSP: As the self representing point was supposed to stand on the map just > imagined, it did not merely represent itself; for it represented its > relations to the other points of Governor's Island. Indeed, it represented > itself only in so far as it represented those relations. A relation, however, > is not comprised in one of the terms of the relation, but only in the two > together; and what is true of the point on the map is equally so of the word > Finis; and so it is in all like cases. A Relation, in the usual sense of this > word, may be defined as a fact concerning a collection of objects, but a fact > regarded as regarded as belonging to one of them primarily, and to another > secondarily in an opposed way, and some relations are triadic, that is, to a > third correlate in still another way, (like the relation of giving), etc. (R > 634:21, 1909 Sep 16) > > Again, there is a trivial sense in which anything whatsoever represents > itself; but according to Peirce, any point on a map also represents its > relations to other points, the word Finis at the very end of a book also > represents its relation to the rest of that text, and the same is true "in > all like cases." He explicitly distinguishes a relation from any one of its > terms, defining it instead as "a fact concerning a collection of objects," > one of which is primary, another secondary, and--in the case of a triadic > relation, such as giving--yet another tertiary. For example, the word "sign" > designates the primary object of the genuine triadic relation of mediating, > not that relation itself. Nevertheless, every sign represents not only itself > and its object, but also its relations to its object and interpretant--the > second and third correlates of the triadic relation of which that sign is the > first correlate--and sometimes its relations to other signs, as well. Perhaps > this is why the three trichotomies for classifying signs in Peirce's 1903 > taxonomy are according to the sign itself, its relation to its (dynamical) > object, and its relation to its (final) interpretant. > > In summary, prescinding any sign (S) requires also prescinding its dynamical > object (Od), its final interpretant (If), and the genuine triadic relation > connecting these three correlates (Od-S-If)--as well as the two distinct > dyadic relations that the latter involves (Od-S and S-If), any dynamical > interpretant (Id) that a replica/instance of the sign actually determines, > and this additional dyadic relation (S-Id). Adding the immediate object (Oi) > and immediate interpretant (Ii), which are internal to the sign and thus have > no external dyadic relations with it, we now have the ten trichotomies for > classifying signs in Peirce's 1906-8 taxonomies. Presumably, they are all > necessary for that purpose because they are all necessary for "an accurate > and broad analysis of the nature of a Sign" (SS 80, 1908 Dec 23; emphasis > mine). Hence, we should be able to employ them fruitfully for the latter > instead of dwelling on the former--especially if we reconceive > tone/token/type as labels for different aspects of the same sign, not > different signs. > > I could say more about the being of a sign but will stop here for today, in > case anyone would like to respond to what I have said so far. Thanks in > advance for any feedback. > > Regards, > > Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA > Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian > www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt > <http://www.linkedin.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt> / twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt > <http://twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt> > _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ > 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 [email protected] . > ► To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message NOT to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] with > UNSUBSCRIBE PEIRCE-L in the SUBJECT LINE of the message and nothing in the > body. More at https://list.iu.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 [email protected] . ► To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message NOT to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] with UNSUBSCRIBE PEIRCE-L in the SUBJECT LINE of the message and nothing in the body. More at https://list.iu.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.
