Helmut, List: Peirce did not go beyond what is labeled below as "level 4," with ten trichotomies. It is not "skipping levels" to obtain 28 sign classes from six trichotomies and 66 sign classes from ten trichotomies, this is just the mathematical result of applying the rule of determination to *any *number of trichotomies logically arranged in a linear order. N trichotomies always produce (N+1)(N+2)/2 classes.
In my view, possible/existent/necessitant for the interpretants correspond to emotional/energetic/logical, not intentional/effectual/communicational. I just explained my understanding of the latter interpretants in the other thread. Peirce explicitly divides each of immediate/dynamical/final into possible/existent/necessitant, so they cannot be the same trichotomy. Regards, Jon S. On Sun, Apr 26, 2020 at 8:33 AM Helmut Raulien <h.raul...@gmx.de> wrote: > Suppsupplement: For me, intentional/effectual/communicational seems a > quite fundamental and easy-to-understand distinction, more easy than > immediate/dynamic/final (interpretant). But I do not see an identity: > Intention is not always conveyed correctly by the sign, and final > interpretant has truth-, and completeness- values assigned to it, while a > communication not necessarily is true and complete. > Possible/existent/necessitant I think, fits better to > immediate/dynamic/final. > > But all this is just 3d-level-10-trichotomies. I have not understood now, > how the skips from 3d to 7th level (28 trichotomies), and from there to the > 11th level (66 trichotomies) take place. But I will try to find out. > Supplement: Is possible/existent/necessitant in case of interpretant the > same as intentional/effectual/communicational ? > Jon, List, > > Thank you! Interesting, that by this way of combining characters with > relations between them also the numbers 10, 28, and 66 are met. I wonder > why that is so. > > Best, > Helmut > 26. April 2020 um 03:41 Uhr > "Jon Alan Schmidt" <jonalanschm...@gmail.com> > 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 >> >
----------------------------- 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 .
