List, Jon: In response to your post of August 4, 2021(copied below) I suggest that you may be misreading the meaning of the sentence that you cited.
In particular, the three terms are not general linguistic propositional terms derived from historical Greek or Latin roots, but all three terms are composed terms coined by CSP for his specific usage as the base for semiosis. Thus, if the nine terms of the trichotomy are indeed a set of connected meanings such that a logical proposition is formed, then a coherent correspondence to pragmatic realism is necessarily asserted. The meaning of the sentence in question is constrained to a small fraction of the totality of scientific epistemology and relates specifically to the syntax and semantics of experience of a sinsign, that is, perceptions of natural processes (in the sense of Whitehead.) The logic CSP asserts is composed from step-by-step paths among the nine terms and their pragmatic interconnectedness (in the sense of Wittgenstein). As a professional chemist, CSP grounded these terms in mathematical calculations that generate molecular structures from atomic formula and molecular formula and the grammars of combinatorics that relate atomic sentences to molecular sentences. The pragmatic interconnectedness of sinsigns, prior to the discovery of the nuclear atom in 1912, was deciphered from “wet chemistry” methods that were based on the mass of the legi-signs and the collections of quali-signs. The assertions were composed from the meanings of any legi-signs under compositions of chemical elements. With regard to the “arrow” symbols, these are used in the sense of traditional chemical usage. That is, the implication is obligatory with respect to the parts of the wholes of the antecedent and consequent. But, note that the traditional chemical arrow specifies a set of triadic illations among attributes, diagrammatic identity, and formal semantics of natural objects. In other words, quali-signs, sin-sign and legi-sign. Yes, this is cyclic logic. This cyclic logic is necessitated by compositional logic of part-whole illations and whole-part illations. A critical component of the demonstration is CSP assertion that the the mapping from the icon to a rhema is comparable to a chemical radical. (I do not have the book on graph theory at hand but is occurs in the first few pages.) I will not develop the multiple propositions necessary to develop the illations between quali-signs, sin-signs and legsi-signs here. The logic follows from the definitions of CSP and the obligatory logics atomic and molecular sentences as applied to the semiotic attributes of chemical elements. However, the references necessary to compose the propositions and the grammatical compositions include the following quotes : 1905-12-20 | The Logic Notebook | MS [R] 339:267r “Philosophy” has 2 principal meanings The cream of the science, – synthetic or positive philosophy Cenoscopy, the study of the experience already acquired. "Next, passing to Class II, philosophy, whose business it is to find out all that can be found out from those universal experiences which confront every man in every waking hour of his life, must necessarily have its application in every other science. For be this science of philosophy that is founded on those universal phenomena as small as you please, as long as it amounts to anything at all, it is evident that every special science ought to take that little into account before it begins work with its microscope, or telescope, or whatever special means of ascertaining truth it may be provided with.” 1896 [c.] | Lessons of the History of Science | CP 1.65 There are in science three fundamentally different kinds of reasoning, Deduction (called by Aristotle {synagögé} or {anagögé}), Induction (Aristotle’s and Plato’s {epagögé}) and Retroduction (Aristotle’s {apagögé}, but misunderstood because of corrupt text, and as misunderstood usually translated abduction). Besides these three, Analogy (Aristotle’s {paradeigma}) combines the characters of Induction and Retroduction. All that makes knowledge applicable comes to us viâ abduction. "The first step of inference usually consists in bringing together certain propositions which we believe to be true, but which, supposing the inference to be a new one, we have hitherto not considered together, or not as united in the same way. This step is called colligation. The compound assertion resulting from colligation is a conjunctive proposition, that is, it is a proposition with a composite icon, as well as usually with a composite index. Colligation is a very important part of reasoning, calling for genius perhaps more than any other part of the process. Many logicians refuse the name of reasoning to an inferential act of which colligation forms no part. Such an inferential act they call an immediate inference. This term may be accepted; but although colligation certainly gives a higher intellectuality to inference, yet its importance is exaggerated when it is represented to be of more account than the conscious control of the operation. The latter ought to determine the title of reasoning.” 1899-1900 [c.] | Notes on Topical Geometry | MS [R] 142:6 Symbols are of three classes: terms, which call attention to things or quasi-things; propositions, which declare facts; and arguments, which profess to enlighten us as to the rational connections of facts or possible facts. 1901-1902 [c.] | Definitions for Baldwin's Dictionary [R] | MS [R] 1147 An argument may be defined as a symbol which definitely and separately shows what interpretant, or conclusion, it aims at. 1866 | Logic Chapter I | W 1:355 … the relation of a repraesentamen to its object (correlate) may be a real relation and, then, either an agreement or a difference, or it may be an ideal r[elati]on or one from which the reference to a correspondent (subject of representation) cannot be prescinded by position. [—] In the second case, there is a real difference of the repraesentamen from its object, that is to say not a mere difference in quality but also a bringing of them together in nature; in this case the representative character of the one will consist in constant accompaniment by the other, so that it indicates the existence of the latter without noting any characters of it. Such a representation may be termed an index. 1903 | Syllabus: Nomenclature and Division of Triadic Relations, as far as they are determined | EP 2:294 … a Qualisign is any quality in so far as it is a sign. Since a quality is whatever it is positively in itself, a quality can only denote an object by virtue of some common ingredient or similarity; so that a Qualisign is necessarily an Icon. Further, since a quality is a mere logical possibility, it can only be interpreted as a sign of essence, that is, as a Rheme. 1903 | Syllabus: Nomenclature and Division of Triadic Relations, as far as they are determined | EP 2:291 A Sinsign (where the syllable sin is taken as meaning “being only once,” as in single, simple, Latin semel, etc.) is an actual existent thing or event which is a sign. It can only be so through its qualities; so that it involves a qualisign, or rather, several qualisigns. But these qualisigns are of a peculiar kind and only form a sign through being actually embodied. 1903 [c.] | P of L | MS [R] 800:4 …signs are divisible, first, according to their modes of being, as objects; secondly, according to the modes of their references to their objects; thirdly, according to the modes of their references to their interpretants. In the first way of dividing them, signs are either qualisigns, or signs that are abstract qualities (in a wide sense), or suisigns, signs that are essentially existent as individual objects or events, or legisigns, signs that [are] general types, laws, or habits. 1904 | Letters to Lady Welby | SS 32 As it is in itself, a sign is either of the nature of an appearance, when I call it a qualisign; or secondly, it is an individual object or event, when I call it a sinsign (the syllable sin being the first sillable [sic] of semel, simul, singular, etc); or thirdly, it is of the nature of a general type, when I call it a legisign. The readiest characteristic test showing whether a sign is a Dicisign or not is that a Dicisign is either true or false, but does not directly furnish reasons for its being so. This shows that a Dicisign must profess to refer or relate to something as having a real being independently of the representation of it as such, and further that this reference or relation must not be shown as rational, but must appear as a blind Secondness. But the only kind of sign whose object is necessarily existent is the genuine Index. This Index might, indeed, be a part of a Symbol; but in that case the relation would appear as rational. Consequently a Dicisign necessarily represents itself to be a genuine Index, and to be nothing more. Cheers Jerry > On Aug 4, 2021, at 3:57 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt <jonalanschm...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Jerry C., List: > > No word games, just a simple request and a sincere question as I try to > understand your claim as quoted. I am well aware of > qualisign/sinsign/legisign as Peirce's 1903 division of all signs according > to the nature of the sign itself, which he later changes to tone/token/type. > I am asking what specific relation you are expressing with the arrows between > them, and what specific passage(s) from Peirce's writings you can cite to > support your interpretation. > > Thanks again, > > Jon S. > > On Wed, Aug 4, 2021 at 2:50 PM Jerry LR Chandler > <jerry_lr_chand...@icloud.com <mailto:jerry_lr_chand...@icloud.com>> wrote: > Jon: > > The sentence you cite is merely the top row of CSP table of the trichotomy. > > If you wish to play word games, count me out. > > Cheers > Jerry >> On Aug 4, 2021, at 10:31 AM, Jon Alan Schmidt <jonalanschm...@gmail.com >> <mailto:jonalanschm...@gmail.com>> wrote: >> >> Jerry C., List: >> >> JLRC: CSP assertion of Quali-sign —> Sinsign —> Legi-sign forms the logical >> and semantic grounding for the chemical sciences. >> >> Please provide an exact quotation for the particular "CSP assertion" that >> you have in mind. What relation are the arrows from qualisign to sinsign and >> from sinsign to legisign supposed to represent? >> >> Thanks, >> >> Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA >> Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian >> www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt >> <http://www.linkedin.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt> - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt >> <http://twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt> >> On Wed, Aug 4, 2021 at 9:35 AM Jerry LR Chandler >> <jerry_lr_chand...@icloud.com <mailto:jerry_lr_chand...@icloud.com>> wrote: >> Helmut: >> >> As a footnote to the exceedingly curious developments of scientific >> terminologies, I would note that: >> >> 1. Robert Rosen denied the role of chemical emergence in his category-theory >> based book, Life Itself. >> 2. The Scandia school of Biosemiotics adopts the evolutionary theory while >> rejecting the chemical theory. >> 3. The formal logic advocates ignore emergence and evolution but >> nevertheless assert the implication sign as symbolic anticipation!. >> >> CSP assertion of Quali-sign —> Sinsign —> Legi-sign forms the logical and >> semantic grounding for the chemical sciences. >> Consequently, his syntactical trichotomy for the relative logics of the >> chemical table of elements also grounds the abstractions for the numerical >> logics of atomic and molecular sentences. >> >> Thus, by vague conjecture, CSP was motivated to develop the concept of the >> phanoscopy differs from the Husserl’s notion of phenomenology by the modal >> logics of conscious feelings. >> >> Cheers >> >> Jerry > _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ > ► 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 UNSUBSCRIBE PEIRCE-L in the SUBJECT LINE of the message and nothing in > the body. More at https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/help/user-signoff.html . > ► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary Richmond; and > co-managed by him and Ben Udell.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ► 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 UNSUBSCRIBE PEIRCE-L in the SUBJECT LINE of the message and nothing in the body. More at https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/help/user-signoff.html . ► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary Richmond; and co-managed by him and Ben Udell.