Atila, Jon, List, What JAS calls “logical principle” actually covers the affinities between classes of signs defined by Peirce in CP 2.264, which are governed by a phenomenological principle of embodiments. All of his arguments, like those of Sebeok (who chaired my thesis committee in 1989), can be easily understood in the structure (lattice) that results from their algebraic treatment[1] <#_ftn1>, as follows:
[image: Une image contenant texte, diagramme, ligne, Tracé Le contenu généré par l’IA peut être incorrect.] In this diagram, the numbers represent the categorial membership of the correlates, the dotted arrows represent the intercategorial embodiments (or involvements) of the corresponding correlates, and the continuous arrows represent identities between the categorial memberships of the correlates. This latticework shows that Dicent Symbols ([332] CP 2.262, e.g., a proposition) embody, in particular, Dicent Indexical Legisigns ([322] CP 2.260, e.g., a street cry), which embody Rhematic Indexical Legisigns ( [321] CP 2.259, e.g., a demonstrative pronoun). JAS refers to them as *indexical parts*. The former govern replicas Dicent Indexical Sinsigns ([222] CP 2.257, e.g. a weathercock), the latter govern replicas Rhematic Indexical Sinsigns ([221] CP 2.256, e.g., a spontaneous cry). In addition, Dicent Indexical Sinsigns embody Rhematic Indexical Sinsigns. The distinctions between "designations" and "reagents" noted by Sebeok are nothing more than observations made prior to the systematic formalization that Peirce would set out in the Syllabus of 1903, 5th lecture, EP2 289-299, MS 540. In this regard, I would like to point out that I have proposed on the List for discussion Part 1 of a chapter[2] <#_ftn2> in which I demonstrate that there is a way to obtain ten classes of Representamens using only Triadic Relations, which become ten classes of signs when their Interpretant is mental. In part 2, which I will discuss soon, I demonstrate that the generalized notion of affinity between classes of Representamens of CP 2.264, which incorporates a notion of adjacency of these classes arranged in an equilateral triangle diagram, leads to the structuring of the set of classes of Representamens in a lattice structure that is none other than the structure above. The interest of this structure lies in its ability to facilitate a cross-reading of any assertion concerning classes of signs, in particular those mentioned by Peirce in his comments from CP 2.255 to 2.263 and also 2.265. It is a theorem of Relational Algebra that postulates itself as a good candidate for the Grammatica Speculativa. Best Regards, Robert Marty ------------------------------ [1] <#_ftnref1> Marty, 1982, "C.S.Peirce phaneroscopy and semiotics", *Semiotica*, vol. 41, nos 1-4,p. 169-181. [2] <#_ftnref2> https://www.academia.edu/130131910/Modeling_and_finalizing_Peirces_semiotics_with_AI Honorary Professor ; PhD Mathematics ; PhD Philosophy fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Marty *https://martyrobert.academia.edu/ <https://martyrobert.academia.edu/>* Le mar. 23 sept. 2025 à 18:39, Jon Alan Schmidt <[email protected]> a écrit : > Atila, List: > > Your quotation from Sebeok brings us full circle--a number of recent List > discussions can be traced back to the key premiss of Peirce's simple and > decisive argumentation for the meaninglessness of Kant's *Ding an sich*. > "It has been shown that in the formal analysis of a proposition, after all > that words can convey has been thrown into the predicate, there remains a > subject that is indescribable and that can only be pointed at or otherwise > indicated, unless a way, of finding what is referred to, be prescribed" (CP > 5.525, c. 1905). It is a concise summary of the logical principle that > every proposition has *indexical *parts--either indices themselves, or > precepts for finding indices--to denote its dynamical objects, with which > interpreters must be acquainted from past collateral experience or present > collateral observation in order to understand it. > > Peirce's "important distinction between two classes of indices," called > "designations" and "reagents," is unique to the first text quoted by Sebeok > (R 142, CP 8.368n23, c. 1899-1900). Designations "merely stand for things > or individual quasi-things," and examples include "personal, demonstrative, > and relative pronouns, proper names, the letters attached to a geometrical > figure, and the ordinary letters of algebra," all of which "act to force > the attention to the thing intended." Reagents "may be used to ascertain > facts," and examples include how "water placed in a vessel with a shaving > of camphor thrown upon it will show whether the vessel is clean or not"; > how a one-foot ruler "might be successively laid down on the road from my > house to Milford, 13200 times," such that "the expression 'two miles and a > half' is, not exactly a reagent, but a description of a reagent"; and how a > "scream for help is not only intended to force upon the mind the knowledge > that help is wanted, but also to force the will to accord it," such that it > is "a reagent used rhetorically." Collateral experience or observation is > required for both--"Just as a designation can denote nothing unless the > interpreting mind is already acquainted with the thing it denotes, so a > reagent can indicate nothing unless the mind is already acquainted with its > connection with the phenomenon it indicates." > > I suggest that designation vs. reagent in that manuscript corresponds > closely to rhematic index vs. dicent index in Peirce's 1903 taxonomy for > sign classification. His examples include the shout of "hullo," the > demonstrative pronoun "that," and the exclamation "hark" as rhematic > indexical legisigns; any actual instance of these as a rhematic indexical > sinsign; a weathercock and a photograph as dicent (indexical) sinsigns; and > a street-cry as a dicent indexical legisign (CP 2.254-65, EP 2:294-7). In > his later taxonomies, he defines the dynamical object as "the Object > outside of the Sign" and adds, "The Sign must indicate it by a hint; and > this hint, or its substance, is the *Immediate *Object," which is "within > the Sign" (SS 83, EP 2:480, 1908 Dec 23). In other words, the immediate > object is *internal* to the sign itself, and its primary function is to > *indicate* the sign's dynamical object. > > > Regards, > > Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA > Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian > www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt / twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt > > On Sat, Sep 20, 2025 at 5:29 PM Atila Bayat <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Jon, >> >> I misquoted the Century Dictionary Volume 3 from 1902 with the heavy >> green boards, and with my magnifying glass. I wrote ‘simple’ and not >> ‘single’ from memory. Good catch! >> >> Thanks for sharing Sebeok’s updated essay. It must be considered one of >> the finest papers of our time in Semiotics. To me it was a lecture that >> rendered Semiotics palpable and accessible. A superb example of scholarship >> throughout. At the time I thought some scholars would not agree with him, >> but his arguments were sound, and Rulon Wells too. He passed when I was >> there in grad school. >> >> Sebeok made a strong argument for the neglected importance of 2ns. >> I loved the quote from it attached here; >> >> "Peirce contended that *no *matter of fact can be stated without the use >> of some sign serving as an index, the reason for this being the inclusion >> of *designators *as one of the main classes of indexes. He regarded >> designations as 'absolutely indispensable both to communication and to >> thought. No assertion has any meaning unless there is some designation to >> show whether the universe of reality or what universe of fiction is >> referred to' (8.368n23, from the undated 'Notes on Topical Geometry'). >> Deictics of various sorts, including tenses, constitute perhaps the most >> clear-cut examples of designations. Peirce identified universal and >> existential quantifiers with selective pronouns, which he classified with >> designations as well (2.289, c. 1893)." >> >> Atila >> > _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ > ► 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] > . > ► <a href="mailto:[email protected]?subject=SIG%20peirce-l";>UNSUBSCRIBE > FROM PEIRCE-L</a> . But, if your subscribed email account is not your > default email account, then go to > https://list.iu.edu/sympa/signoff/peirce-l . > ► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary Richmond; and > co-managed by him and Ben Udell.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ► 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] . ► <a href="mailto:[email protected]?subject=SIG%20peirce-l";>UNSUBSCRIBE FROM PEIRCE-L</a> . But, if your subscribed email account is not your default email account, then go to https://list.iu.edu/sympa/signoff/peirce-l . ► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary Richmond; and co-managed by him and Ben Udell.
