List With regard to the use of the terms of ‘genuine, degenerate and doubly degenerate’ - my understanding of these terms is that they refer only to the categories. Not to the ’nodes’ and relations, ie, not to the two Objects or the three Interpretants. .
For example, Peirce writes: “The Sign may be said pose as a representative of its object, that is, suggests an idea of the Object which is distinguishable from the Object in its own Being. The former I term the Dynamoid Object [for I want the word “genuine” to express something different]; the latter the Immediate Object …Each off these many have either off the three Modalities of Being, the former in itself, the latter in representation. 1908 Letters to Lady Welby lMS[R] L463.15. That is, Peirce specifically rejects in the above quote, the use of the term ‘genuine’ to refer to the Dynamoid Object. With regard to the terms of ‘genuine’, degenerate and doubly degenerate’, as I’ve said - my readings of Peirce are that these terms refer strictly to the categories, with there being genuine and degenerate forms of Secondness [ 2-2 and 2-1]; See 1903 1.535. and three forms of Thirdness, from genuine, to a first degree of degeneracy [3-2] to ’the most degenerate [3-1]. See 5.70-71; and 1903; 1.536-37. and 8.331-32 I don’t consider that the ordinal numbers of First, Second and Third refer to the complexity of the Relations and ’nodes’, but to the order of processing [ this is not the same as ‘determination’].. That is - the Representamen, which functions within the sign-vehicle, begins. [is First] the semiosic process when it receives input data from the Dynamical Object. [Second]…and mediates this input to arrive at, Third, the Interpretant[s]. The determinative process, as outlined clearly by Robert Marty, moves from O-R-I - by which is meant, the nature of and content of the information being semiotically processed. The point of ‘determination, as Robert Marty points out is that it ‘renders definitely to be such as it will be [8.361 1908[…by which I understand that the informational content [as Interpreted] is determined by the nature of and content of the data input from the Object…as mediated by the semiosic nature of the Representamen… I am presuming that this ‘grounds’ the semeiotic process in an objective rather than subjective world. Edwina > On Jan 9, 2024, at 6:08 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt <jonalanschm...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Jerry, List: > > I am honestly not sure exactly what all you are asking me to address here and > how my engineering background is relevant. What do you mean by "the origins > of the 'triadic relations'"? From what are we seeking to distinguish Peirce's > semeiotic? What do you have in mind as semantic aspects of the triadic > relations? > > My understanding is that the immediate object and immediate interpretant are > internal to the sign, while the dynamical object, dynamical interpretant, and > final interpretant are external to the sign. Presumably, that is why Peirce's > late taxonomies for sign classification include separate trichotomies for the > sign's dyadic relations with the latter three correlates, but not the former > two. > > Regarding where syntax originates and resides, this passage seems relevant. > > CSP: A single Assertion has but a single Predicate; but the simplest > Assertion has more than one Subject, unless it be such a statement as "It > rains," where one of the Subjects is expressed otherwise than in words. But I > must explain myself more fully, and in the way which alone will be truly > expressive, namely, by examples. I will, however, first remark that the > Proposition that embodies an Assertion has the same Subjects and Predicate as > the Assertion itself. Take the Proposition "Cain killed Abel." This is > identically the same Proposition as "Abel was killed by Cain": It is only the > grammatical dress that is different. Other things being equal, everybody will > prefer the former. Why? Because it is simpler; but why is it simpler? Because > in putting the cause before the effect, it in that respect diagrammatizes the > truth. What are the Subjects of this Proposition[?] Cain, first: that is not > only a Subject of the Proposition, but is the principal Subject of the > Assertion which a historian would naturally make. But in the Proposition Cain > and Abel are, as Subjects, on one footing precisely (or almost precisely, for > Cain is preponderant in causality). But besides these, "killed" = committed > murder upon, is a third Subject, since no study of the words alone, without > extraneous experience, would enable the Ad[d]ressee to understand it. What, > then, is left to serve as Predicate? Nothing but the flow of causation. It is > true that we are more acquainted even with that in Experience. When we see a > babe in its cradle bending its arms this way and that, while a smile of > exultation plays upon its features, it is making acquaintance with the flow > of causation. So acquaintance with the flow of causation so early as to make > it familiar before speech is so far acquired that an assertion can be > syntactically framed, and it is embodied in the syntax of every tongue. (R > 664, 1910) > > The proposition "Cain killed Abel" has three subjects denoted by its three > words--the dyadic relation of killing and its two correlates, Cain and Abel, > all of which require collateral experience/observation to understand--and > exactly one predicate, a pure or continuous predicate that "is signified as > the logical connexion between the Subjects" (R 611, 1908) only by its syntax. > As Peirce explains elsewhere, "A proposition can be separated into a > predicate and subjects in more ways than one," but this approach is "the > proper way in logic" (NEM 3:885, 1908) because "when we have carried analysis > so far as to leave only a continuous predicate, we have carried it to its > ultimate elements" (SS 72, 1908). For more on this, I highly recommend > Francesco Bellucci's 2013 paper about it > (https://www.academia.edu/11685812/Peirces_Continuous_Predicates). > > In the Beta part of Existential Graphs (EG), there are two ways of > indexically denoting subjects--lines of identity for indefinite individuals, > and names for general concepts--while the pure/continuous predicate is again > iconically signified by the syntax, in this case the arrangement of the lines > and names (as well as any shaded areas for negation) on the sheet of > assertion that represents the universe of discourse. Attributing concepts to > individuals by attaching names to lines increases the information being > conveyed by making those individuals more definite (increasing logical depth) > and those concepts more determinate (increasing logical breadth). As a dyadic > relation, the EG for killing has two lines and three names, while as genuine > triadic relations, the EGs for representing/mediating and giving have three > lines and four names each (as I have noted previously). > > When it comes to ordinal numbers, phaneroscopic analysis of the genuine > triadic relation of representing/mediating establishes that the sign is the > first (simplest) correlate, the object is the second (of middling > complexity), and the interpretant is the third (most complex). The upshot is > that there is only the genuine correlate for the sign itself, there are > genuine (dynamical) and degenerate (immediate) correlates for the object, and > there are genuine (final), degenerate (dynamical), and doubly degenerate > (immediate) correlates for the interpretant. Nevertheless, the dyadic > relations of determining are always from the object through the sign to the > interpretant, such that the sign is passive with respect to the object and > active with respect to the interpretant (EP 2:544n22, 1906). Again ... > > CSP: I will say that a sign is anything, of whatsoever mode of being, which > mediates between an object and an interpretant; since it is both determined > by the object relatively to the interpretant, and determines the interpretant > in reference to the object, in such wise as to cause the interpretant to be > determined by the object through the mediation of this "sign." The object and > the interpretant are thus merely the two correlates of the sign; the one > being antecedent, the other consequent of the sign. (EP 2:410, 1907) > > Regards, > > 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 Mon, Jan 8, 2024 at 10:06 PM Jerry LR Chandler > <jerry_lr_chand...@icloud.com <mailto:jerry_lr_chand...@icloud.com>> wrote: >> Following Robert’s efforts to clarify meanings of terminology in symbolic >> logics... >>> On Jan 8, 2024, at 9:45 AM, Jon Alan Schmidt <jonalanschm...@gmail.com >>> <mailto:jonalanschm...@gmail.com>> wrote: >>> >>> The directionality of semiosis is such that the object determines the sign >>> while being unaffected by that sign, and the sign determines the >>> interpretant while being unaffected by that interpretant. >> >> Jon: >> >> Given your background as an engineer, I would appreciate your opinion on the >> following. >> >> In recent years, I have turned my attention to the distinctions between the >> classical philosophy of signs, originating in the medical arts and other >> simpler perspectives of communications. Let’s call these texts as >> “semiology” texts. In these writings, I do not find any reason not to >> assume that both the object (detected by writer) and the signs that were >> described by the ancients in scripts were naturally external to the writer. >> So, the questions arises, how does one locate the origins of the “triadic >> relations”? >> >> Then the question arises, how does one distinguish CSP’s “semiotics”. >> Which semantic aspects of the “triadic relations” are external? >> Which semantic aspects of the "triadic relations are internal to the >> describer? >> >> In other words, Where does the syntax for triadic relation originate? >> And, Where does the syntax for triadic relation reside? >> >> And, how would such a determination fix the differentiation between the >> adjectives (…ness) and the numbers, either / or cardinal or ordinal? …. >> neither /nor? >> Cheers >> >> Jerry > _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ > ARISBE: THE PEIRCE GATEWAY is now at > https://cspeirce.com and, just as well, at > https://www.cspeirce.com . It'll take a while to repair / update all the > links! > ► 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.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ARISBE: THE PEIRCE GATEWAY is now at https://cspeirce.com and, just as well, at https://www.cspeirce.com . It'll take a while to repair / update all the links! ► 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.
