Bernard, List: These are interesting comments, and I have changed the subject line in the hope that we can have some further productive discussion about them.
BM: There is also the rationale of the capacity to experiment the possible / impossible routes upon the ordered structure. This is the reason that lead me to insert the Xth division (assurance of instinct, experience, form) before all the descriptions of the interpretants. Peirce's use of abducent/inducent/deducent for the Od-S-If trichotomy in an earlier taxonomy (R 339:424[285r], 1906) obviously suggests correspondence with the three kinds of argument as abductive/inductive/deductive, which is presumably why most scholars place it *after *the S-If trichotomy. Inserting it *before *all the interpretant trichotomies entails (among other things) that *every *argument is a deducent with assurance of form. However, this is strictly the case only for a valid *deductive *argument--its form is such that its conclusion is *necessarily *true as long as its premisses are true. For an *inductive *argument, the assurance comes instead from experience--if the conclusion is false, then this will *eventually *come to light in the long run. For an *abductive *(or retroductive) argument, the assurance comes instead from instinct--the proposed explanatory hypothesis is prompted by *il lume naturale* and considered merely *plausible*. BM: Not doing so will lead to render phaneroscopy a simple paraphrase of semiotic, ending into some kind of tautology between them. Please elaborate. How could my proposed order of the last six trichotomies for sign classification somehow reduce phaneroscopy and semeiotic to the same field of study? BM: I am on the contrary convinced that Peirce was after 1903 in search of a means for ascertaining the truth of the three categories. After having built a solid house on the logical side, implanted on philosophy, he was searching after what the practical observation of phanerons could reinforce or dismiss. Again, please elaborate. I generally agree with these statements, but what specific bearing do they have on the order of the last six trichotomies for sign classification? Thanks, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt On Fri, Nov 12, 2021 at 11:28 AM Bernard Morand <morand.bern...@neuf.fr> wrote: > Jon, list > > OK the main difference comes from our respective understandings for final > and normal interpretant. > > Subsidiarily there may be a question of method too: the order of logical > determinations is not , I think, the only rationale at stake for the second > way of dividing signs. > > There is also the rationale of the capacity to experiment the possible / > impossible routes upon the ordered structure. This is the reason that lead > me to insert the Xth division (assurance of instinct, experience, form) > before all the descriptions of the interpretants. > > Not doing so will lead to render phaneroscopy a simple paraphrase of > semiotic, ending into some kind of tautology between them. > > I am on the contrary convinced that Peirce was after 1903 in search of a > means for ascertaining the truth of the three categories. After having > built a solid house on the logical side, implanted on philosophy, he was > searching after what the practical observation of phanerons could reinforce > or dismiss. > > Regards > > Bernard >
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ► 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.
