Jon, list,
thank you for explaining, e.g. of the ten divisions of signs!
They contain correlates with single names, and relations too. About "relation" I think, that to observe a relation it takes objectivity. But objectivity is sometimes hard to achieve. For example, there is a man who decides to become a stalker, and his intended-for victim, the stalker says that they have a relation, and the intended-for victim says they dont. Do they have one or not?
A normal triad ABC (like in "A gives B to C") is compositionally irreducible, and projectively (or projectionally, I forgot) reducible to the dyads AB, BC, AC. The SOI- triad is noncompositionally, maybe also called projectively, reducible to the dyads SS, SO, SI. So it is very special kind of triadic relation. There is no relation OI, and in all dyads S appears. So S plays a central, focal role.
To avoid objectivity problems, I thought it is ok to look at the whole thing from the sign´s point of view, that is to ask, which functions do S, O, I and the further divisions have for S. Because the self-relation SS is included, I think, that there is nothing more the (function of the) sign consists of than these functions for it. That is why I called it (functional) composition.
But maybe there is a logical fault in this argument, because a function of the sign might be that the object is changed. This might be a function of the sign, but not a function for it. But maybe too, the object is changed rather by the interpretant, and there is an act of determination from the changed object to the new sign that the interpretant becomes. In the actual sign, the not-yet-changed object determines the sign, and the sign the interpretant. The possibility or necessity of object change is in the interpretant that is determined by the sign, so maybe this determining function of the sign is also a function for it.
Best,
Helmut
03. April 2019 um 23:06 Uhr
"Jon Alan Schmidt" <jonalanschm...@gmail.com>
wrote:
"Jon Alan Schmidt" <jonalanschm...@gmail.com>
wrote:
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. Sign2.1.1. Immediate object2.2.1. Intended dynamic object2.2.2. Extended dynamic object3.1.1. Immediate interpretant3.2.1. Intended dynamic interpretant3.2.2. Extended dynamic interpretant3.3.1. Intended final interpretant3.3.2. Extended final interpretant3.3.3. 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,HelmutHelmut, 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, USAProfessional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran LaymanOn 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 .
