Cécile, List: I should add that the three-digit sign class identifiers in manuscript R 799 (undated by Robin) are for the 1903 taxonomy as indicated by the accompanying text, not the (abbreviated) 1908 taxonomy as shown in the triangular diagram. Again, in R 799, the first number is for the sign itself, the second is for its *relation *to its object, and the third is for its *relation *to its interpretant; while in CP 8.376/EP 2:491, the first number is for the object *itself*, the second is for the sign itself, and the third is for the interpretant *itself*.
Regards, Jon On Mon, Jan 22, 2024 at 1:21 PM Jon Alan Schmidt <jonalanschm...@gmail.com> wrote: > Cécile, List: > > As Peirce states in the accompanying text, the triangular diagram in CP > 8.376 (also EP 2:491) indicates ten sign classes that can be obtained from > three trichotomies--one for the object, one for the interpretant, and one > for the sign itself. It is very important to recognize two facts about > this. First, he does not stipulate the *order *of these trichotomies for > obtaining the ten classes; but in accordance with what I call the "rule of > determination" (EP 2:481), the numbers in the diagram are *only *consistent > with it being first the one for the object (upper left), then the one for > the sign (bottom), and finally the one for the interpretant (upper right). > Second, these are *not *the same three trichotomies that he uses to > obtain ten classes of signs in 1903; those are first the one for the > representamen *itself* (qualisign/sinsign/legisign), then the one for its > *dyadic relation > *to its object (icon/index/symbol), and finally the one for its *dyadic > relation > *to its interpretant (rheme/dicisign/argument). > > Consequently, it is a mistake to assign *any *of the 1903 class names to *any > *of the ten numbered combinations in the 1908 diagram--they are very > different taxonomies. After all, the 1908 diagram is in a postscript > written just three days after Peirce spells out *ten *trichotomies (EP > 2:479-480) from which *66 *sign classes can be obtained, once their > proper logical order is established--the subject of ongoing investigation > and considerable debate by Peirce scholars, because he never fully worked > it out himself. Six of the ten trichotomies are for the correlates > themselves--the sign (now synonymous with representamen), its two objects, > and its three interpretants. Three are for the sign's external dyadic > relations--to its dynamical object, its dynamical interpretant, and its > final interpretant. The last is for the sign's genuine triadic relation to > its dynamical object and its final interpretant. > > If we take the three trichotomies in the 1908 diagram as being for the > *genuine > *correlates--the dynamical object (abstractive/concretive/collective), > the sign itself (tone/token/type), and the final interpretant > (gratific/actuous=to produce action/temperative=to produce > self-control)--then the ten classes that result would be the following, > from left to right and from bottom to top. > > 1. 333 - Collective Temperative Type > 2. 332 - Collective Actuous Type > 3. 331 - Collective Gratific Type > 4. 322 - Collective Actuous Token > 5. 321 - Collective Gratific Token > 6. 311 - Collective Gratific Tone > 7. 222 - Concretive Actuous Token > 8. 221 - Concretive Gratific Token > 9. 211 - Concretive Gratific Tone > 10. 111 - Abstractive Gratific Tone > > Peirce names the 1903 classes in reverse order of the > trichotomies--interpretant relation, then object relation, then sign > itself--while my suggested names here correspond to dynamical object, then > final interpretant, then sign itself. The 1903 taxonomy has one class of > qualisigns, three classes of sinsigns, and six classes of legisigns; but > this (abbreviated) 1908 taxonomy has three classes of tones, four classes > of tokens, and three classes of types--again, the two taxonomies are very > different. > > In any case, I have come to agree with James Liszka ( > https://doi.org/10.1515/sem-2018-0089) that increasingly elaborate > classifications of *individual *signs result from a "reductionist > approach to sign analysis that loses the holistic and integrative aspects > of its triadic character," with the problematic outcome that “the theory is > more complex than the phenomenon it hopes to explain." As he proposes, "the > remedy is to re-emphasize the processual and functional view of semiosis, > rather than to focus on particular classes of signs." Accordingly, I > advocate conceiving the entire universe as one immense sign--a vast > semiosic continuum in which the whole is ontologically prior to its parts, > which are likewise signs but indefinite unless and until deliberately > marked off for a particular purpose. > > Regards, > > Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA > Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian > www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt / twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt > > On Mon, Jan 22, 2024 at 9:22 AM Cécile Cosculluela < > cecile.coscullu...@univ-pau.fr> wrote: > >> Dear all, >> >> In CP 8.376 (1908), the order in which to read the three numbers >> (mentioned in the small triangles that make up the triangle with the ten >> classes of signs) is not obvious because they are not written >> sequentially on a line. Yet, to respect the logic of phaneroscopic >> categories, the only possible order is to start with the object (top left), >> then the representamen (bottom), and finally the interpretant (top >> right). Not only is this not the order in which Peirce mentions them in >> CP 8.376 (where, as underlined in the attached document), he mentions >> the object, then the interpretant, and then the representamen that he >> calls « the sign itself »), but more importantly starting with the object >> seems to be in contradiction with the (names of the) categories >> themselves, which logically start with the first trichotomy of the three >> that combine to create the ten classes of signs, that of the « sign >> itself », i.e. the representamen, namely either the qualisign, the >> sinsign, or the legisign. Does CP 8.376 mean that the (names of the) >> classes of signs actually start with the icon, index, or symbol, that compose >> the second trichotomy? If this is so, does it mean that in 321 (class >> VI) , the number 3 refers to the Object, and therefore class VI is that of >> the dicent iconic legisign? (321 is not the dicent iconic legisign but >> the rhematic indexical legisign, right?) >> >> Best regards, >> >> Cécile >> >> PS: I am truly grateful for the enriching semiosis woven on this List, >> all the contributions and the light that they shed, thanks to which I have >> been, among other things, (re)reading these excepts and getting my ideas >> clearer and clearer: >> >> "A representamen is the First Correlate of a triadic relation, the Second >> Correlate being termed its Objet, and the possible Third Correlate being >> termed its interpretant, by which triadic relation the possible >> Interpretant is determined to be the First Correlate of the same triadic >> relation to the same Objet, and for some possible interpretant. A Sign is a >> representamen of which some interpretant is a cognition of a mind." (CP >> 2.242, c. 1903) >> >> "the essentially triadic nature of a Sign. I mean because three things >> are concerned in the functioning of a Sign; the Sign itself, its Object, >> and its Interpretant." (C.P. 4.531, 1906) >> >> "A sign, therefore, has a triadic relation to its Object and to its >> Interpretant." (CP 8.343, 1908) >> >> "The proper way to pursue the inquiry is to start from the definition >> already given of the triadic relation of Sign-Object-Interpretant." (CP >> 8.361, 1908) >> >> “I shall show that a Concept is a Sign and shall define a Sign and show >> its triadic form.” ( CP 8.305, c. 1909) >> >> ------------------------------ >> *Cécile Cosculluela* >> MC anglais UPPA ∗ SSH ∗ LEA >> Maître de Conférences en Etudes Anglophones >> *Associate Professor of English as a Second Language* >> *Semiotics • Linguistics • Grammar • Translation* >> >
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 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.
