Robert, List: To clarify, I agree with what you say below and did not mean to imply otherwise. I sincerely appreciate your scholarship, even though we have reached some different conclusions when it comes to the details. Also, the "moral injunction" with which I concluded was not based on anyone's authority, just Peirce's own words as quoted.
Thanks, Jon S. On Fri, Apr 24, 2020 at 4:49 AM robert marty <robert.mart...@gmail.com> wrote: > Jon, List : > > Peirce asks himself questions and only questions to know which > trichotomies of which virtual or abstract thought objects (ie the Ai of > my protosigns) he could choose to place them in the 10 places. At this > moment they are trichotomies *independentes* of any determination > between these objects. There are actually 59049. It's enough to impress > Lady Welby and William James! > > But once this choice is made we would obviously fall back on the usual 66 > classes. > > This is not the first time he has evaluated his task: > > Peirce: CP 5.488 Cross-Ref:†† 488. I here owe my patient reader a > confession. It is that when I said that those signs that have a logical > interpretant are either general or closely connected with generals, this > was not a scientific result, but only a strong impression due to a > life-long study of the nature of signs. My excuse for not answering the > question scientifically is that I am, as far as I know, a pioneer, or > rather a *backwoodsman*, in the work of clearing and opening up what I > call semiotic, that is, the doctrine of the essential nature and > fundamental varieties of possible semiosis; and I find the field too vast, > the labor too great, for a first-comer. I am, accordingly, obliged to > confine myself to the most important questions. The questions of the same > particular type as the one I answer on the basis of an impression, which > are of about the same importance*, exceed four hundred in number*; and > they are all delicate and difficult, each requiring much search and much > caution. At the same time, they are very far from being among the most > important of the questions of semiotic. Even if my answer is not exactly > correct, it can lead to no great misconception as to the nature of the > logical interpretant. There is my apology, such as it may be deemed." (dated > v.1936) > > 400 is much less than 59049! > > However, anyone can declare themselves an explorer today, this is the > condition of any free search. As far as I am concerned, I constantly > control that my explorations stick to Peirce's fundamental writings, > paragraph by paragraph, word by word. > > You end with a moral injunction based on the authority of John Sowa: > > *"That is why I insist on faithfulness to Peirce's own writings when > employing his terminology and seeking to apply his ideas today. Otherwise, > we do not actually "build on and extend his work," but rather create > something new of our own invention and wrongly attribute it to him."* > > > > I wonder who it can apply to and I don't feel concerned. On the other > hand, I fear that there is still much to clear in the forest and that there > is not yet time to plant trees on the freed parts won. > Le ven. 24 avr. 2020 à 04:15, Jon Alan Schmidt <jonalanschm...@gmail.com> > a écrit : > >> Robert, List: >> >> I agree that pursuing a tree structure effectively abandons the quest for >> exactly 66 classes of signs, since that number depends directly on a >> linear arrangement of the ten trichotomies. Perhaps that is why Peirce >> made the following remarks in draft letters to Lady Welby and William >> James, respectively. >> >> CSP: On these considerations I base a recognition of ten respects in >> which Signs may be divided. I do not say that these divisions are enough. >> But since every one of them turns out to be a trichotomy, it follows that >> in order to decide what classes of Signs result from them, I have 3^10, or >> 59,049, difficult questions to carefully consider; and therefore I will not >> undertake to carry my systematical division of Signs any farther, but will >> leave that for future explorers. (EP 2:482, 1908 Dec 24-28) >> >> CSP: I might have drawn more than ten distinctions; but these ten >> exhibit all the distinctions that are generally required in logic; and >> since investigation of these involved my consideration,--virtually at >> least,--of 59,049 questions, still leaving me on the portico of logic, I >> thought it wise to stop with these. (EP 2:501, 1909 Dec 25) >> >> >> Note that he wrote both of these passages *after *his famous statement >> that "instead of making 59,049 classes, these will only come to 66" (EP >> 2:481, 1908 Dec 23). Perhaps he was already reconsidering that assessment >> a couple of days later, resulting in the first quote, while the second one >> comes a few weeks after the Logic Notebook entry in which he sketched out >> the hierarchical approach. >> >> In any case, we are now among the "future explorers" for whom Peirce left >> various follow-up tasks to undertake, including further investigation of >> alternatives for a "systematical division of Signs." As John Sowa >> quoted him earlier today, "One generation collects premises in order that a >> distant generation may discover what they mean" (CP 7.87, 1902); but if we >> get the premisses wrong, then the conclusions that we derive from them >> will also be wrong. That is why I insist on faithfulness to Peirce's own >> writings when employing his terminology and seeking to apply his ideas >> today. Otherwise, we do not actually "build on and extend his work," but >> rather create something new of our own invention and wrongly attribute it >> to him. >> >> Regards, >> >> Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA >> Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman >> www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt >> >> On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 12:02 PM robert marty <robert.mart...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> "The designations here are the same as above, although the reference is >>> to a longer entry in the Logic Notebook written a few days later. As >>> Bellucci summarizes, "the ten trichotomies are arranged in a >>> *tree-structure*, not as a *linear succession,*" but "Peirce never >>> managed to apply to his tenfold taxonomy of signs the new step-by-step >>> method." Bellucci does not attempt to do so himself; and as far as I know, >>> no one else has tried yet either." >>> >>> If you put a tree structure on the ten trichotomies you can say >>> probably goodbye to the 66 classes of signs which are coextensive with a >>> linear series of successive determinations. >>> >>> what will you do if you finish by a fork ? >>> >>> Exemple with a final fork : >>> >>> A1--> A2--> A3--> A4--> A5-->A6-->A7 -->A8 >>> | >>> V >>> A9 >>> | >>> V >>> A10 >>> you have in fact 2different suites of 8 objects : >>> >>> A1--> A2--> A3--> A4--> A5-->A6-->A7 -->A8 >>> >>> A1--> A2--> A3--> A4--> A5-->A6-->A9-->A10 >>> >>> the number of classes of signs obtained is [(9*10)/2]*2=90 >>> >>> it is easy to see that the cases with equal branches give the following >>> numbers of classes according to the length n of the common core: >>> >>> n=2, 56 ; n=4 , 72 ; n=6 , 90; n=8, 110 >>> >>> but maybe you see things differently ? >>> >>
----------------------------- 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 .
