Jon, Helmut, List, Jon wrote:
JAS: At level 2, the sign is the first correlate (1) of a genuine triadic relation, while the object is the second correlate (2) and the interpretant is the third correlate (3). However, *the second and third trichotomies of Peirce's famous 1903 taxonomy are not divisions according to the object and interpretant **themselves, but rather their relations **with the sign* (CP 2.242-243, EP 2:290-291, 1903); this is my only quibble with Gary R.'s response earlier today, which is otherwise excellent. Arranging them logically in a linear order and applying the rule of determination (EP 2:481,1908) results in the familiar 10 classes of signs. [Emphasis added by GR] Thank you for your favorable response to my post. I was, however, a bit taken aback by your "quibble" above that "the second and third trichotomies of Peirce's famous 1903 taxonomy are not divisions according to the object and interpretant *themselves*, but rather their *relations *with the sign." I was just about to furiously plunge into my CP and EP, esp. the former which I recalled had sections titled something like "A Second Trichotomy" and "A Third Trichotomy" where I was sure my analysis would be supported. But then, a fraction of a moment later, I thought, of course Jon is right, and that is why, for example, I "corrected" Peirce's "*Dicent* Indexical Sinsign " to read "Dicent(*ic*) Indexical Sinsign." For, indeed, the adjectival form of the 2nd and 3rd trichotomies better shows their *relations *to the sign when naming its class, the sign itself always expressed in a noun. So in describing trichotomic sign classes, although Peirce didn't consistently do so, it seems better to characterize each sign -- as to the 2nd and 3rd trichotomies -- as iconic, indexical, or symbolic; and rhematic, dicentic, or argumentative (although one never sees the very last one, 'argumentative', for the obvious reason that only one of the 10 classes of signs *is* an Argument. Indeed, it has been argued, correctly I think, that there are no pure icons, indices, or symbols. The status of arguments, propositions, and terms would seem to be somewhat more problematic until you consider that *as *signs they are all legisigns. I hope to have more to say in regard to your other recent posts, but won't get to that today. Meanwhile, thanks for your correction. Best, Gary R "Time is not a renewable resource." gnox *Gary Richmond* *Philosophy and Critical Thinking* *Communication Studies* *LaGuardia College of the City University of New York* <http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail> Virus-free. www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail> <#m_-8133813589029369546_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2> On Sat, Apr 25, 2020 at 9:41 PM Jon Alan Schmidt <jonalanschm...@gmail.com> wrote: > Helmut, List: > > What is described below is not the "tree structure" that Peirce outlined > in his Logic Notebook entry of November 1, 1909, but rather a variation of > the podium diagram that Robert Marty proposed in his recent paper. The > first number indicates the correlate--sign (1), object (2), or interpretant > (3). The second number indicates "immediate" as a possibility internal to > the sign (1), "dynamical" as an actuality external to the sign (2), or > "final" as a conditional necessity (3). The third number indicates > correspondence to a monadic correlate (1), a dyadic relation (2), or a > triadic relation (3). > > At level 2, the sign is the first correlate (1) of a genuine triadic > relation, while the object is the second correlate (2) and the interpretant > is the third correlate (3). However, the second and third trichotomies of > Peirce's famous 1903 taxonomy are not divisions according to the object and > interpretant *themselves*, but rather their *relations *with the sign (CP > 2.242-243, EP 2:290-291, 1903); this is my only quibble with Gary > R.'s response earlier today, which is otherwise excellent. Arranging them > logically in a linear order and applying the rule of determination (EP > 2:481,1908) results in the familiar 10 classes of signs. > > At level 3, categorial analysis requires one sign (1.1) to have two > objects (immediate=2.1, dynamical=2.2) and three interpretants > (immediate=3.1, dynamical=3.2, final=3.3). Dividing each of these six > correlates (hexad) into possible/existent/necessitant (Edwina's "categorial > modes" of 1ns/2ns/3ns), arranging them logically in a linear order (again, > Robert and I only differ on which interpretants come fourth and sixth), and > applying the rule of determination results in 28 classes of signs. > > At level 4, there are not three objects and six interpretants, but rather > the same two objects and three interpretants, plus three dyadic relations > (including the two from the 1903 taxonomy) and one triadic relation, > yielding Peirce's ten trichotomies--S (1.1.1), Oi (2.1.1), Od (2.2.1), Od-S > (2.2.2), Ii (3.1.1), Id (3.2.1), S-Id (3.2.2), If, (3.3.1), S-If (3.3.2), > and Od-S-If (3.3.3). Dividing each of these into > possible/existent/necessitant, arranging them logically in a linear order, > and applying the rule of determination results in 66 classes of signs. > > Regards, > > Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA > Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman > www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt > > On Sat, Apr 25, 2020 at 1:09 PM Helmut Raulien <h.raul...@gmx.de> wrote: > >> List, >> >> I still do not understand, why the tree-structure should not be able to >> be applied to the sign characters, meaning, there are more than three >> interpretants due to the level of analysis. Starting from level 1, where >> you have one class/character, a thirdness, on level two you have three, and >> so on: >> >> level >> characters >> number of characters >> >> 1 >> (3) >> 1 >> 2 >> (1);(2);(3) >> 3 >> 3 (1.1); (2.1),(2.2); >> (3.1).(3.2),(3.3) >> 6 >> 4 (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) 10 >> >> The number of classes/characters is the former number of characters plus >> the number of the new level. At level 7 you have 28 characters, and at >> level 11 you have 66. >> >> Apart from sign classes and sign characters (is it agreed now, that sign >> is 1ns, object 2ns, and interpretant 3ns?) this tree-structure according to >> Peirce also applies for consciousness (Primisense, Altersense, Medisense), >> analysed by him up to the 3d level. >> >> This eternal tree-structure should be possible to apply to all things >> that underly the categories, otherwise the categories would not be >> categorical, and thus not categories, I think. >> >> Best, >> Helmut >> > <http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail> Virus-free. www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail> <#m_-8133813589029369546_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
----------------------------- 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 .
