Helmut - I think we'll have to agree-to-disagree on a lot!
However, I do consider that the triadic Sign is a function. f{x}=y,
where 'f' is the mediative Representamen, 'x' is the input data from
the DO and 'y' of course is the output Interpretant. I personally
consider that the Function is an excellent example of the triadic
semiosic process.
Again, I caution about confusing the mediative Representamen, also
called 'sign', with the full triadic Sign of O-R-I. The mediative
Representamen/sign does not 'exist' on its own; it's always part of
the semiosic triad.
I'm afraid that I don't understand your list of 'functional
parts'...where you have, for instance, the Immediate Object within
the categorical modes of 2.1.1. I simply don't get this. The IO is a
part of the triad - and could be in any one of the three categories
[1ns, 2ns, 3ns] - and so, I don't get your point.
Edwina
On Wed 03/04/19 9:47 AM , "Helmut Raulien" h.raul...@gmx.de sent:
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"
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 www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt [1] -
twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt [2] On Tue, Apr 2, 2019 at 3:10
PM Helmut Raulien 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 [4] .
Links:
------
[1] http://www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt
[2] http://twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
[3]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'h.raul...@gmx.de\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
[4] http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm
-----------------------------
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 .
