Helmut - I think it would be helpful to provide a real life example!
That is - semiosis has to move beyond words and yes, beyond the
delights of tables and formulae - and into the real world. How do
these 'signs' actually function in the real world?
Edwina
On Tue 12/05/20 11:09 AM , "Helmut Raulien" h.raul...@gmx.de sent:
Jon, List, Thank you! I have drawn (see attachment) three tables
about three trichotomies/ ten classes. One is the known signs table
(valency), the others are about determination and involution. What to
do with them? My idea is for example (only pay attention, if it is
not all false): (: You can look at the valency table, and choose a
dicentic indexical legisign. Then you can see, which else signs this
object (index) may determine in the determination table:
index-sinsign-dicent, index-sinsign-rheme, and index-qualisign-rheme.
The latter does not exist in the valency table. So there may be
determined (is determination a possibility?) except from the original
sign (dicentic indexical legisign) also a rhematic indexical sinsign,
and a dicentic indexical sinsign. In fact you don´t need the
determination table for this: You just can look in the valency table,
which signs pass the index. In the involution table, you can look
up, which signs are involved in the original sign:
Dicent-index-sinsign, dicent-index-qualisign, dicent-icon-qualisign.
But of these combinations, in the valency table only the dicentic
indexical sinsign exists, so only this is involved. In fact, for this
too, you donot need the involution table. You just go straight to the
left from the dicent in the valency table. Next you can look which
signs are involved by the possibly determined other signs: Go in the
valency table to the left from the rheme: Rhematic iconical
qualisign. And from the dicent: Dicentic indexical sinsign, which we
already have. So, with the valency table you can look, which signs
a sign involves, which other signs may be determined by the object,
and which signs they would involve. The determination and involution
tables are not necessary therefor, they merely are for explanation.
I have assumed, that involution is a triadic relation. If not, so if
also the object alone involves, then all mentioned signs (rhematic
iconical qualisign too) are involved not possibly, but necessarily.
Best, Helmut 12. Mai 2020 um 03:20 Uhr
"Jon Alan Schmidt"
wrote: Helmut, List: I am not sure that "mode of composition" is
the right way to characterize the basis of the arrangement below (EP
2:482-483, 1908), but what I notice now is that it conforms to Gary
R.\'s [1] vector of order (1ns→2ns→3ns) at all three
levels--first the correlate itself (S=1, O=2, I=3), then the nature
of its relation to the sign (immediate/possible=1,
dynamical//actual=2, final/necessary=3), and then the valency of that
relation (monadic=1, dyadic=2, triadic=3). 1.1.1 - Mode of
Apprehension of the Sign 2.1.1 - Mode of Presentation of the
Immediate Object 2.2.1 - Mode of Being of the Dynamical Object
2.2.2 - Dyadic Relation of the Dynamical Object and Sign 3.1.1 -
Mode of Presentation of the Immediate Interpretant 3.2.1 - Mode of
Being of the Dynamical Interpretant 3.2.2 - Dyadic Relation of the
Sign and Dynamical Interpretant 3.3.1 - Purpose of the Final
Interpretant 3.3.2 - Dyadic Relation of the Sign and Final
Interpretant 3.3.3 - Triadic Relation of the Dynamical Object,
Sign, and Final Interpretant
By contrast, my proposed logical order for sign classification
conforms to different vectors at the different levels--first
determination (2ns→1ns→3ns) for the correlates, then order
(1ns→2ns→3ns) for the valencies, and then analysis or involution
(3ns→2ns→1ns) for the relations. The only deviation from this
scheme is the placement of Od-S, which reflects the principle that a
division for a relation must come after all divisions for the
correlates that it involves/presupposes. 2.2.1 - Mode of Being
of the Dynamical Object 2.1.1 - Mode of Presentation of the
Immediate Object 1.1.1 - Mode of Apprehension of the Sign
2.2.2 - Dyadic Relation of the Dynamical Object and Sign 3.3.1 -
Purpose of the Final Interpretant 3.2.1 - Mode of Being of the
Dynamical Interpretant 3.1.1 - Mode of Presentation of the
Immediate Interpretant 3.3.2 - Dyadic Relation of the Sign and
Final Interpretant 3.2.2 - Dyadic Relation of the Sign and
Dynamical Interpretant 3.3.3 - Triadic Relation of the Dynamical
Object, Sign, and Final Interpretant However, I wish to
reiterate that my own evolving speculative grammar does not apply the
rule of determination to the ten trichotomies in this sequence to
obtain 66 classes of signs. I am still tinkering with the details,
but right now it makes more sense to me to begin with 3.3.2 as
term/proposition/argument and then apply different trichotomies in
different ways to each of these three basic classes. For example, an
indexical term such as a line of identity in existential graphs
(indefinite), a spontaneous cry (singular), or a demonstrative
pronoun (general) is always a concretive designative, requiring
present collateral observation to identify the individual thing that
it denotes. On the other hand, a symbolic term such as "beauty"
(monadic), "killing" (dyadic), or "giving" (triadic)--i.e., the label
for a spot in existential graphs--is always an abstractive
descriptive, requiring past collateral experience to identify the
quality or relation that it denotes. Regards, Jon Alan
Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Professional Engineer, Amateur
Philosopher, Lutheran Layman www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt [2] -
twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt [3] On Sun, May 10, 2020 at 11:35
AM Helmut Raulien wrote: Correction: "mode of determination
like in "O-S-I". List, as the basis for Peitce´s 66 sign classes
are these trichotomies: 1st, According to the Mode of Apprehension
of the Sign itself, 2nd, According to the Mode of Presentation of
the Immediate Object, 3rd, According to the Mode of Being of the
Dynamical Object, 4th, According to the Relation of the Sign to its
Dynamical Object, 5th, According to the Mode of Presentation of the
Immediate Interpretant, 6th, According to the Mode of Being of the
Dynamical Interpretant, 7th, According to the Relation of the Sign
to the Dynamical Interpretant, 8th, According to the Nature of the
Normal Interpretant, 9th, According to the Relation of the Sign to
the Normal Interpretant, 10th, According to the Triadic Relation of
the Sign to its Dynamical Object and to its Normal Interpretant.
(L463: 134, 150, EP2: 482-483) ,and Priscilla Borges´ order is
different, it starts with the dynamical object. my assumption is,
that Peirce´s sequence works due to the mode of composition, and
Priscilla Borges´ sequence works due to the mode of determination.
Is that correct? With "due to the mode of composition" I mean the
categorial sequence 1-2-3, like, with three trichotomies "S-O-I", and
with "due to the mode of determination" I mean the order in which one
element determines the other, like in "D-S-O". If "mode of
composition" is not the best term, what would you (anyone) call it?
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 [5] .
Links:
------
[1]
https://arisbe.sitehost.iu.edu/menu/library/aboutcsp/richmond/trikonic.htm
[2] http://www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt
[3] http://twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
[4]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'h.raul...@gmx.de\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
[5] http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm
-----------------------------
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 .
