Auke, List: I did not say that doubt is a habit, I said that a belief is a habit (of conduct), such that "the resolution of doubt into belief" is a habit-change.
Since I deny that a quality *in itself* can be a sign of anything other than itself--which is trivial, since everything is a sign of itself--I also deny that there can be "collections of qualisigns." As I said before, I instead hold that there are *tones *embodied in tokens--"indefinite significant character[s] such as a tone of voice" (CP 4.537, 1906)--which influence the dynamical interpretants that those tokens determine. I am again having trouble making sense of the rest of the post below. I will only point out that phaneroscopy is not "in between" logic and semeiotic in Peirce's architectonic, unless "logic" here refers to strictly formal/mathematical logic and not the normative science of logic (CP 4.240, 1902); the latter, of course, *is* semeiotic (CP 1.191, 1903). In phaneroscopy we discern three irreducible elements in all phenomena, but only mediation (3ns) is associated with signs. Qualities (1ns) and reactions (2ns) are also present to the mind, but not *as signs*. Instead, we employ signs to *think about* them subsequent to perceiving them, and this "cognitive resultant of our past lives" constitutes our accumulated *experience *(CP 2.84, 1902). Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt On Fri, May 1, 2020 at 8:47 AM Auke van Breemen <a.bree...@chello.nl> wrote: > Jon Alan, List, > > I think that by now our discussion about interpretants has been carried > trough to a sufficient degree. In the sense that the respective positions > have been clarified as far as possible and no further gain is to be > expected. > > Yust one note about doubt supposed to be a habit. The method to resolve > doubt can be called a habit (tenacity, etc.). But doubt itself is a > secondness, a resistance, just like a tooth ache. Somewhere in the semiotic > fabric a door proved shut and an interpretation process couldn't be > completed satisfactory. Semiotics provides a strategy to systematically > inspect the process and indicate where the obstruction resides and what to > look for as a remedy. > > I only consider one subject deserving further discussion: qualisigns. It > surprises me that you omit them. > > JAS: For example, my speculative grammar does not include qualisigns at > all, for the reason that I already stated--a quality in itself cannot > *represent > *something else as its object, it can only *present *itself. > > --- > > As a side remark I wrote "collection of qualities" and not just "quality". > > You hit the hammer on the nail! Exactly. The question is: To what do they > present themselves? > > In analysis mode continuing. Collections of qualisigns present themselves > to an interpreting thought in development, by being taken as a sign for > some object. - I use the stages Sarbo and farkas introduced- > > First step is sorting, i.e. It gets severed from the interpreting sheet by > appearing as a one time (with an indefinite beginning and end, etc.) iconic > form (icon aspect, collection of qualities) written on the sheet (sinsign > aspect). > > Next comes abstraction. The form proves (un)familiar to the sheet > (legisign aspect or doubt), but the completion of the process also depend > on the interpretative interpretational possibilities a (un)familiar form > offers to this sheet (Rheme aspect). > > By the way. I always regarded Claudio's nonagons to deal with this > rhematic aspect. In short and incomplete: Take the Bense diagramm of the 9 > sign aspects. Take something you are interested in. Claudio has a very nice > one on color. Put color in the index position and start pondering color > from the point of view of the different sign aspects. Like KiF, it is like > doing a sudoku. A fascinating feat is the possibility to drill down in each > field in order to arrange the items you found. In KiF you only drill down > in the index position, in order to explicates the sub-processes, needed for > completion of the process. > > Next completion. The legisign may be indexically connected with a symbol, > like for example 'horse'. Lets just stick to part of a lexicon as rhematic > possibilities of the sign and take 1. an animal and 2. a gymnastics device. > Depending on the context the sheet is in, one of these possibilities (only > potentially present) will surface (dynamical interpretant aspect). If the > habit fits the situation, we have a satisfying result. As a side result, > the normal interpretant gets strenghtend. > > How could we arive there, if the qualisigns did not present themselves? > > it is of interest to note that already in 1868 Peirce remarked that `[. . > . ] in no instant in my state of mind there is cognition or representation, > but in the relation of different instants there is.' [...] the immediate > (and therefore in itself insusceptible of mediation-the Unanalyzable, the > Inexplicable, the Unintellectual ) runs in a continuous stream through > our lives. W. II, p. 22730 > > The step from stating that the unanalyzable runs in a coninuous stream > through our lives, to the statement that > qualisigns enter the interpretational process by emerging on the Semiotic > Sheet as an sinsign/icon adressing rheme and legisign, is not that great. > > In box-x, the model Peirce created to generate the 16 booleans. First step > take an x and put 00, 10, 10 and 11 in the 4 compartments. Step 2, repeat > step one in each section, prefix the value we already have in that > compartment. > > Let FFFF express the unintellectual, the unknowable that runs in a > continuous stream through our lives (qualisigns) > > And let TTTT express all that can possibly be expressed by a sign, whether > true or false in any assumed universe. > > Over and against any cognition, there is an unknown but knowable reality; > but over against all possible cognition, there is only the > selfcontradictory. Writings II, p. 208 > > hen, box-x can be regarded as expressing what is logically involved in > the process that runs from doubt to belief. Rotate the diamond and we get > the Bense diagram, with qualisigns at the FFFF position and TTTT at the > argument position and we established a link with the work of Claudio. > Rotate again to its original position and we have KiF with the sign aspects > on the nodes. > > From the point of view of architectonics here we have a nice example of > how logic and semiotic are related. The former delivering the principles, > the latter the matter. Phaneroscopy inbetween, only covering the > apprehension of the sign as an object, or probably better, it covers the > proces that takes the collection of qualities as a sign. > > Here resides one reason why I propose to distinghuis an alpha, beta and > gamma part of semiotics. Box-x is a relation between the Booleans and the > small classification. It is to be expected that what the Welby > classification adds, works, so to speak, as a modifier on the nodes. As > step 2 in Box-x did. Bernard Moran has a nice book about the relation > between the Small and the Welby classification highly relevant for this > point. > > Best, > > Auke >
----------------------------- 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 .
