Jon, Edwina, list,
ok, if I cannot say that a sign consists of S, O, I, maybe I can say, that the function of a sign consists of the functions of S, O, I? To call it functional composition?
In this aspect, it applies to any, every, each sign, so it has not much to do with classification at this point. Functional composition in my theory also is not about externality or internality, that would be spatial composition, and is another, third, topic.
I think it is interesting, that the six parts of sign function, further analysed on the third level, give ten functional parts (again, not to be confused with the ten sign classes). My proposal is:
1.1.1. Sign
2.1.1. Immediate object
2.2.1. Intended dynamic object
2.2.2. Extended dynamic object
3.1.1. Immediate interpretant
3.2.1. Intended dynamic interpretant
3.2.2. Extended dynamic interpretant
3.3.1. Intended final interpretant
3.3.2. Extended final interpretant
3.3.3. True final interpretant.
Intended DO plus intended FI make that what is called "intension" in other concept theories.
Extended DO plus extended FI make what is called "extension".
True FI is what is called "truth" in metaphysics, it only is the last point, and remains the last point in further analysis (4th level, 5th level...), so truth´s percentage of the whole thing gets smaller and smaller, the further the analysis is carried out.
Functional composition is the composition of any sign affair, regarding it is generalisation.
Classification is not generalisation, but the opposite: Specification.
Generalisation and specification are two different ways of analysis, and should not be mixed, this only brings confusion, also the whole external-internal talk, which is a third, different affair, the spatiality of signs.
Best,
Helmut
02. April 2019 um 22:55 Uhr
"Jon Alan Schmidt" <jonalanschm...@gmail.com>
wrote:
"Jon Alan Schmidt" <jonalanschm...@gmail.com>
wrote:
Helmut, List:
A Sign does not consist of three parts; rather, there is an irreducible triadic relation between a Sign, its Object, and its Interpretant. This can be further analyzed into the Sign, its two Objects (Immediate and Dynamic), and its three Interpretants (Immediate, Dynamic, and Final); and besides the triadic relation with its Dynamic Object and Final Interpretant, the Sign has three external dyadic relations--with its Dynamic Object, Dynamic Interpretant, and Final Interpretant. Each of these six correlates and four relations can be divided into three classes, according to whether they belong to the Universe of Possibles, Existents, or Necessitants.
If we were to arrange these ten trichotomies into a logical order, and then apply the "rule of determination" (EP 2:481; 1908), they would produce a total of 66 classes of Signs. I have proposed in the past that the proper sequence for this is DO>IO>S>S-DO>FI>DI>II>S-FI>S-DI>DO-S-FI, but it is a matter of considerable controversy in the secondary literature, since Peirce never finished working out his own arrangement beyond DO>IO>S. Nevertheless, when we focus on only three of these trichotomies--for the Sign itself, its relation with its Dynamic Object, and its relation with its Dynamic Interpretant, in that order--we obtain the 10 classes of his 1903 taxonomy.
Your "second level composition" seems to fit the six correlates--S (1.1), IO (2.1), DO (2.2), II (3.1), DI (3.2), FI (3.3). Your "third level composition" seems to fit the ten divisions of 1908--S (1.1.1), IO (2.1.1), DO (2.2.1), S-DO (2.2.2), II (3.1.1), DI (3.2.1), S-DI (3.2.2), FI (3.3.1), S-FI (3.3.2), DO-S-FI (3.3.3). Your "third level classification" seems to fit the ten classes of 1903, once we reverse the order of the trichotomies to match Peirce's naming convention--Qualisign (1/1/1), Iconic Sinsign (1/1/2), Iconic Legisign (1/1/3), Rhematic Indexical Sinsign (1/2/2), Rhematic Indexical Legisign (1/2/3), Rhematic Symbol (1/3/3), Dicent Sinsign (2/2/2), Dicent Indexical Legisign (2/2/3), Dicent Symbol (2/3/3), Argument (3/3/3).
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman
On Tue, Apr 2, 2019 at 3:10 PM Helmut Raulien <h.raul...@gmx.de> wrote:
Edwina, list,I just think that the six subcategories as well as the six sign parts are a matter of composition, and that composition is a different topic than classification, and that compositional and classificational affairs should not be blended together too easily.Sign parts are a composition of classes, and the ten classes of signs are a classification of possible compositions.In categorial composition, subcategory numbers can only stay the same or go down, the result in the second level is six, and in the third level ten:1, 2, 3 are composed of 1.1; 2.1, 2.2; 3.1, 3.2, 3.3., that is six.Further analysis would make 1.1.1; 2.1.1, 2.2.1, 2.2.2; 3.1.1, 3.2.1, 3.2.2, 3.3.1, 3.3.2, 3.3.3., that is ten.In categorial classification, numbers can only stay the same or go up, the numerical results are the same, first six, then ten:The classes 1, 2, 3 can be first classified as 1/1, 1/2, 1/3; 2/2, 2/3; 3/3, that is six.Further classification makes 1/1/1, 1/1/2, 1/1/3, 1/2/2, 1/2/3, 1/3/3; 2/2/2, 2/2/3, 2/3/3; 3/3/3., that is ten.Because a sign consists of three parts, not of two, the second level classification does not make much sense, so mostly the third level (classification of three composites) with ten classes is regarded.Best,Helmut
----------------------------- 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 .
