Helmut, List: I prefer to stick with Peirce's terminology--every Sign is one correlate of an irreducible triadic relation, along with its Object and its Interpretant. In this context, external vs internal has nothing to do with "spatial composition"--according to his definitions, the Immediate Object and Immediate Interpretant are both *internal to the Sign*; while the Dynamic Object, Dynamic Interpretant, and Final Interpretant are all *external to the Sign*. Logical *extension* is what Peirce preferred to call "breadth" and associated with the *Object*, while logical *intension *is what he preferred to call "depth" and associated with the *Interpretant*.
However, again, it seems to me that your "third level composition" nicely fits the ten divisions of Signs that Peirce posited in various manuscripts from 1906 to 1908. 1.1.1. Sign (S) 2.1.1. Immediate Object (IO) 2.2.1. Dynamic Object (DO) 2.2.2. Dyadic Relation of the Sign to the Dynamic Object (S-DO) 3.1.1. Immediate Interpretant (II) 3.2.1. Dynamic Interpretant (DI) 3.2.2. Dyadic Relation of the Sign to the Dynamic Interpretant (S-DI) 3.3.1. Final Interpretant (FI) 3.3.2. Dyadic Relation of the Sign to the Final Interpretant (S-FI) 3.3.3. Triadic Relation of the Sign to the Dynamic Object and the Final Interpretant (DO-S-FI) Note that the first level is Sign/Object/Interpretant, the second level is Immediate/Dynamic/Final, and the third level is monadic/dyadic/triadic. While certainly reflecting *different *aspects of Peirce's phenomenological Categories of 1ns/2ns/3ns, these levels clearly are *not *the "categorical modes" or Universes of Possibles/Existents/Necessitants into which Signs are divided *within *each trichotomy. Instead, they are the basis for *identifying *those trichotomies in the first place, such that we can *subsequently *derive the ten Sign classes of 1903 from three of them (1.1.1, 2.2.2, 3.3.2) or the 66 Sign classes of 1908 from all ten. Such an approach is supported by the following passages. CSP: A *Sign*, or *Representamen*, is a First which stands in such a genuine triadic relation to a Second, called its *Object*, as to be capable of determining a Third, called its *Interpretant*, to assume the same triadic relation to its Object in which it stands itself to the same Object. (CP 2.274, EP 2:272-273; 1903) CSP: I will just mention that among Firstnesses there is no distinction of the genuine and the degenerate, while among Thirdnesses we find not only a genuine but two distinct grades of degeneracy. But now I wish to call your attention to a kind of distinction which affects Firstness more than it does Secondness, and Secondness more than it does Thirdness. This distinction arises from the circumstance that where you have a triplet you have three pairs; and where you have a pair, you have two units. Thus, Secondness is an essential part of Thirdness though not of Firstness, and Firstness is an essential element of both Secondness and Thirdness. Hence there is such a thing as the Firstness of Secondness and such a thing as the Firstness of Thirdness; and there is such a thing as the Secondness of Thirdness. But there is no Secondness of pure Firstness and no Thirdness of pure Firstness or Secondness. (CP 1.529-530; 1903) The Sign is a First (1ns of 1ns), so it has no degenerate correlate. The Object is a Second, so it has one degenerate correlate (Immediate, 1ns of 2ns) and one genuine correlate (Dynamic, 2ns of 2ns). The Interpretant is a Third, so it has two degenerate correlates (Immediate, 1ns of 3ns; Dynamic, 2ns of 3ns) and one genuine correlate (Final Interpretant, 3ns of 3ns). As *internal* to the Sign (1ns), the Immediate correlates have no *distinct *relations with it; but as *external *to the Sign (2ns and 3ns), the Dynamic and Final correlates have *dyadic *relations with it; and the Final Interpretant (3ns of 3ns) facilitates the overall *triadic *relation. Regards, Jon S. On Wed, Apr 3, 2019 at 12:02 PM Helmut Raulien <h.raul...@gmx.de> wrote: > > Supp.: I admit, what I wrote may be what do you call it, botching? > Bungling? And I was not aware of Peirces 1908 work, and dont know what e.g. > S-DO, and DO-S-FI means. Maybe also, intension and extension of a concept > is only about type-signs... Anyway, making up things is more fun to me than > closely reading Peirce. Bad, I know. > *Corrected: 19th and 21st line.* > 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 DI plus intended FI make that what is called > "intension" in other concept theories. > Extended DO plus extended DI 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: > > 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 - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt > > 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 .
