Gary F., List: As I see it, #11 is the main sticking point ...
GF: 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. ... because to me, it contradicts #7. GF: 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. The order of determination does not apply *only *to correlates, it applies to *all *of the divisions for classifying Signs. In particular, the Sign determines the Sign-Object relation, which determines how the Interpretant represents the Sign. As I emphasized when I quoted it, the order of the three trichotomies in CP 2.243 is *not *random or inconsequential. For example, if it were switched to your order, an Argument could be a Qualisign, and a Legisign could not be an Icon; but these conclusions are inconsistent with the ten classes that Peirce went on to identify. As for #12 ... GF: As I said above, there is no “Object trichotomy” or “Interpretant trichotomy” in NDTR. This is true--but if there had been, the order of determination would have been Interpretant, Object, Sign in accordance with CP 2.235-238. By 1908, the order of determination was instead (two) Objects, Sign, (three) Interpretants. Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt On Sun, Apr 16, 2017 at 1:26 PM, <g...@gnusystems.ca> wrote: > 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. >
----------------------------- 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 .
