Jon, Gary, list,
I just noticed that a point got somehow dropped out between those numbered 9 and 10 below. That point was about the rheme/dicisign/argument trichotomy, which of course is Peirce’s third division of signs, “according as its Interpretant represents it as a sign of possibility or as a sign of fact or a sign of reason.” If we need to refer to this point, let’s call it “point X.” Anyway, it’s absence does not not affect the main argument of the post. Gary f. _____________________ Jon S, Gary R, Evidently you are both making some inference that to me appears unwarranted and unmotivated. The issue may be terminological, or it may be grounded in a much deeper conceptual difference regarding the nature of signs. Perhaps if I break the whole matter into smaller steps as I see them, and lay them out one at a time, you will be able to identify the step where my thinking diverges from yours. Since the crux of the matter appears to be CP 2.238 in NDTR, all of my direct references will be to NDTR. Maybe after that I can comment on Jon’s remarks about Peirce’s 1908 classification. The question for you is: Which of the following assertions would you deny? 1. A trichotomy is a division of something into three, such that each of the three resulting terms denotes a subtype of the original something. 2. NDTR as a whole — and CP 2.238 in particular — is about division of triadic relations into types. 3. All triadic relations have three correlates, generically labelled First, Second and Third correlates. 4. Any of the three correlates of a given triadic relation may be regarded as simpler or more complex than the others. If they are not all of the same complexity, then the simplest is called First and the most complex is called Third correlate. 5. All of NDTR from CP 2.243 on (pp. 291-299 in EP2) is about one type of triadic relation, of which a Sign is First Correlate, an Object is Second Correlate, and a (possible) Interpretant is Third Correlate. 6. In NDTR there are three trichotomies in which the three divisions have specific names. These are icon/index/symbol, rheme/dicisign/argument, and qualisign/sinsign/legisign. Each of these nine terms names a type of Sign (not a type of triadic relation, but the type of First Correlate which characterizes such a triadic relation). 7. The extensions of these names are obviously overlapping, as the same sign can be (for instance) a symbol and an argument and a legisign. However the overlapping is constrained by the order of determination, so that (for instance) the same sign cannot be both a sinsign and an argument. [We have already agreed on this.] 8. In each of these three trichotomies in NDTR, the three sign types are distinguished according to different criteria, which criteria are logically independent of one another. 9. The icon/index/symbol trichotomy, introduced by Peirce in 1867 (though with slightly different names), is made according to the (dyadic) relation between Sign and Object, i.e. between the first and second correlates of the triadic relation. 10. The qualisign/sinsign/legisign trichotomy, introduced by Peirce in 1903, is made according to the nature of the sign itself without regard to its relation to the other correlates in the triadic relation; or as Peirce puts it, “according as the sign in itself is a mere quality, is an actual existent, or is a general law.” For this reason, it would be fair enough to call it “the Sign trichotomy,” although Peirce simply refers to it as “the first division.” However, I don’t call it “the Sign trichotomy” because all three trichotomies, and not only this one, are divisions of Signs. There is no “Object trichotomy” or “Interpretant trichotomy” in NDTR. (Peirce does introduce in 2.238 the possibility of dividing triadic relations according to the nature of the Second or the Third Correlate, but he never actualizes that possibility, and if he did, they would not be divisions of Sign types. (If they were applied to the kind of triadic relation of which a Sign is First Correlate, they would be divisions of Object types and Interpretant types, respectively.) 11. You will have noticed that I have listed the three trichotomies in a different order from that of Peirce’s list in 2.243 (EP2:291, quoted below by Jon). Jon appears to be claiming that if the three trichotomies are listed in the order I have given, or in any order differing from 2.243, they could not “generate the ten specific classes of Signs that Peirce subsequently identified, in accordance with the rule that a possibility can only determine a possibility and a law can only be determined by a law.” My contrary claim is that the order in which trichotomies are listed has nothing to do with the order of determination that applies to correlates, and if Peirce had chosen to list them in the order I did, this would make absolutely no difference to the tenfold classification of signs. What does make a difference is the criteria according to which the trichotomies are defined … which are not the criteria listed in CP 2.238. 12. I still can see no basis for your assertion, Jon, unless it be a confusion of trichotomies with correlates. Indeed, a similar confusion that would seem to be behind your assertion that “Each of the correlates in that 1908 passage is divided by a trichotomy, so the order of determination is the order of the trichotomies.” I don’t see how you relate this to 2.238, given that it is not true of 2.238, or of NDTR as a whole, that “each of the correlates is divided by a trichotomy.” As I said above, there is no “Object trichotomy” or “Interpretant trichotomy” in NDTR. More important, the order of determination (or complexity) applies the order of correlates but has nothing to do with the order of trichotomies. Point 12 seems a good place to stop, for now at least. Perhaps this is enough to locate the point of divergence in our respective accounts of Peirce’s classifications of signs. Gary f. From: Jon Alan Schmidt [mailto:jonalanschm...@gmail.com] Sent: 15-Apr-17 18:54 To: Gary Fuhrman <g...@gnusystems.ca <mailto:g...@gnusystems.ca> > Cc: Peirce-L <peirce-l@list.iupui.edu <mailto:peirce-l@list.iupui.edu> > Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Dyadic relations within the triadic Gary F., List: GF: The reason for the 1908 ordering you quote seems clear enough because it is an order of successive determination, but it has no relation to any ordering of trichotomies. Now you lost me. Each of the correlates in that 1908 passage is divided by a trichotomy, so the order of determination is the order of the trichotomies. For example, as Peirce goes on to explain (EP 2:484-488), a Potisign can be Copulative, Denominative, or Descriptive; an Actisign can be Copulative or Denominative; and a Famisign must be Copulative. This is because the Immediate Object determines the Sign; in other words, the Immediate Object trichotomy comes (logically) before the Sign trichotomy. GF: Nor is there any logical order among the three trichotomies that Peirce actually applies to signs in NDTR. Yes, there is. CSP: Signs are divisible by three trichotomies: first, according as the sign in itself is a mere quality, is an actual existent, or is a general law; secondly, according as the relation of the sign to its Object consists in the sign's having some character in itself, or in some existential relation to that Object, or in its relation to an Interpretant; thirdly, according as its Interpretant represents it as a sign of possibility, or as a sign of fact, or a sign of reason. (EP 2:291, emphases added) The three 1903 trichotomies must be in this order to generate the ten specific classes of Signs that Peirce subsequently identified, in accordance with the rule that a possibility can only determine a possibility and a law can only be determined by a law. Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
----------------------------- 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 the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
