|
Ben:
I don't think you or your position would lose any
credibility by letting Jean-Marc have the last word on the matter.
Joe Ransdell
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2006 4:14
PM
Subject: [peirce-l] Re: 1st image of
triangle of boxes (MS799.2)
Jean-Marc:
In reading Joe's response to you, I am reminded that you still haven't
taken a stand on the three main trichotomies and their categorial
correlations. If you do in fact understand the correlations, you may feel that
it destroys your argument to admit that you understand them. But then it comes
to the same thing.
Then I caught this remark of yours:
> Then Marty claimed that some of the trichotomies are redundant.
(this is summarized in a mail dated 2006/06/16 sent to peirce-l which you most
likely overlooked.) which would not yield to 66 classes of signs but only
28.
Far from overlooking it, I responded to it, and am still awaiting
Robert's reply. I append it directly below.
Best, Ben Udell
----- Original Message ----- From: Benjamin Udell To: Peirce Discussion
Forum Sent: Friday, June 16, 2006 12:28 PM Subject: [peirce-l] Re:
redundancies of trichotomies
Robert, list,
> Bernard Morand mention in a message my assertion claimed in my book
"L'alg¨bre des signes" according to many trichotomies among the 10
trichotomies are redundant.
> Here are my arguments, exposed on the case of the trichotomie number
IV concerning "the relation of the sign to the dynamic objet" :
> By the trichotomy number I ( The sign itself, the mode of
apprehension of the sign itself" ) we know the categorial membership of the
sign ( 1, 2 or 3 ); by the trichotomy number III (the Mode of Being of the
dynamical object)...
Number III being abstractive/concretive/collective.
>... by the trichotomy number III (the Mode of Being of the
dynamical object) we know the categorial membership of the dynamic object (1,2
or 3). In view that the dynamical object determine the sign we have the
following possibilities :
> If the Mode of apprehension of the sign is 3, the Mode of Being of
the Dynamical object is 3 and their relation is categorically determined by
the pair (3,3). The sign is a symbol.
> If the Mode of apprehension of the sign is 2, the Mode of Being of
the Dynamical object is 3 or 2 and their relation is categorically determined
by the pair (3,2) or by the pair (2,2). In both cases the sign is an index.
(respectively legisign or sinsign)
 Trichotomy I, the Mode of apprehension, consists
of 1. qualisign, 2. sinsign, and 3. legisign. If the Mode of apprehension is
2, then the sign is a sinsign. So the pair (3,2) is a collective sinsign and
the pair (2,2) is a concretive sinsign. Yet you then say that (3,2) and (2,2)
are, "respectively, legisign or sinsign." Also, the collective sinsign seems
to be excluded by Peirce's "ususal" rules of sign-parametric combination. One
of us seems to have gone wrong here. Your discussion is formulated rather
abstractly, so I may well be the one who'se gone wrong. But would you clarify
this? It seems like you meant to write some permutation of this. E.g.,
"If the Mode of Being of the Dynamical Object is 3, the Mode of
apprehension of the sign is 3 or 2, and their relation is categorically
determined by the pair (3,2) or by the pair (2,2). In both cases the sign is
an index (respectively legisign or sinsign)."
In that case (3,2) would be a (2) concretive (3) legisign and (2,2) would
be a (2) concretive ([CORRECTED] 2) sinsign, and it would be allowed by the
rules of sign-parametric combination, and would cohere with saying that the
sign is respectively legisign or sinsign. But Peirce's parametric combination
rules would seem to allow the concretive sinsign to be iconic rather than
indexical. So, if you meant to refer to a concretive legisign and a concretive
sinsign, then what rule of combining sign-parametric values are you using and
on what basis do you rule out the apparently allowed iconic concretive
sinsign? I'm not saying that it shouldn't be ruled out. But that's the step
that renders Trichotomy IV redundant. The 10-ad of trichotomies which we're
discussing is far from "canonical." But still, what are your
ideas these regards? This is of interest to the question of whether you
keep the arrangement whereby all symbols are copulant and none of them
designative or descriptive.
> If the Mode of apprehension of the sign is 1, the Mode of Being of
the Dynamical object is 3 or 2 or 1 and their relation is categorically
determined by the pair (3,1) or by the pair (2,1)or by the pair (1,1). In the
three cases the sign is an icon ( respectively legisign or sinsign or
qualisign).
I have the analogous question here as I asked above. (You start out
saying that the sign is a qualisign, and (3,1) seems to be a collective
qualisign, and (2,1) seems to be a concretive qualisign, and (1,1) seems to be
an abstractive qualisign. (3,1) & (2,1) seem excluded by the usual rules
of sign-parametric combination, and then you say that the sign a qualisign or
a sinsign or a legisign. Etc.)
Best, Ben Udell
> Whatever the case the trichotomie n¨ IV is enterely determined by
the trichotomies I and III and consequently the distinction brought forth this
trichotomie is not operative and I conclude that is redundant.
> The same argument can be advanced for the trichotomies VII and IX,
generally for the trichotomies concerning relations betwen elements of which
the nature is otherwise know .
> The case of tne trichotomie number X is different and I admit
willingly that I don't see what can be a trichotomy of a triadic relation
especially when I represent It by a branching Y. If anyone can give to me an
idea on this matter I should be grateful to him...
----- Original Message -----
From: "Benjamin Udell" To: "Peirce Discussion Forum" Sent:
Friday, June 16, 2006 12:56 PM Subject: [peirce-l] Re: redundancies of
trichotomies
Robert, list,
I wrote,
"In that case (3,2) would be a (2)
concretive (3) legisign and (2,2) would be a (2) concretive (3)
sinsign,..."
Things are confusing enough without my typos. I
meant,
"In that case (3,2) would be a (2) concretive (3) legisign and (2,2)
would be a (2) concretive (2) sinsign,..."
- Best, Ben
Udell
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2006 4:39 PM
Subject: [peirce-l] Re: 1st image of triangle of boxes
(MS799.2)
Jean-Marc: What you say below suggests a chaos in Peirce's work
and in the scholarship about it which does not exist, as regards this matter
in question. I have said several times here and once quite
recently that all talk about Peirce's work on the trichotomies past the three
presented in the Syllabus of Logic of 1903 where the stuff about the ten sign
classes first appears is about material in Peirce's notebooks which is
very much of the nature of work in process that never reached even a
provisionally satisfactory status in Peirce's own estimation. It cannot
be talked about as if it is on par, as representing Peirce's view, with the
material in the Syllabus where the first three trichotomies are developed
systematically and were in fact made publicly available by Peirce.. So far as
I know, no one who is aware of this in virtue either of studying the MS
material themselves or hearing about how problematic it is from me or someone
else disagrees with that, so far as I know. Ben's comments about the
three trichotomy set which Peirce himself made publicly available are quite
reasonable as a way of contrasting the present status of that with the
unsettled status of the material in his notebooks. I am less
concerned with defending Ben, though, than I am with there not being a
misunderstanding about the present scholarly situation. There is no
assumption, of course, that any settlement of opinion on any of this is
definitive or absolute. . Joe Ransdell ----- Original Message
----- From: "Jean-Marc Orliaguet" < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Peirce
Discussion Forum" < peirce-l@lyris.ttu.edu> Sent:
Wednesday, June 21, 2006 12:48 PM Subject: [peirce-l] Re: 1st image of
triangle of boxes (MS799.2) Benjamin Udell wrote: > Jean-Marc,
list, > > I don't even agree in the end with Peirce's
classification but it's pretty obvious that whether one partially or
totally orders the 10 classes depends on the criteria. And it's pretty
obvious that the trichotomies are ordered (or orderable) in a Peircean
categorial way, specifically: the 1st trichotomy pertains to the sign's own
category, the 2nd to the category in which the sign refers to its object, and
the 3rd to the category in which the sign entails its interpretant. If one
incorporates this ordering of the trichotomies into the ordering of the
classes, then one ends with a complete ordering of the classes. One can
also so prioritize as to arrive simply at the partially ordered lattice.
This is at least partly a matter of whether one prioritizes the Peircean
category of the trichotomy (the ordinality of the "parameter") or the
Peircean category of the term IN the trichotomy (the ordinality of
the "parametric value"). How does one decide? Well, one looks at it both
ways, both ways have their illuminative aspects, so one ends up finally
not choosing one way dispensing permanently with the other way. So there
seems to be some optionality in how one orders these things. Jean-Marc,
however, seems to believe that the ordering question is quite
determinate, and leads inevitably to the partial ordering. He does this
by dismissing without analyzing the certainly very categorial appearance
of the ordering of the trichotomies. Certainly Peirce was quite conscious
of this categorial structure of the trichotomies, since his 10-ad of
trichotomies is obviously an attempt to extend that
structure. > > Where most Peirceans seem to regard this matter as
settled and fairly simple, Jean-Marc differs, which is his right.
But I don't see in any of this thread where Jean-Marc addresses what
certainly appears to be a Peircean categorial orderability of the
trichotomies. Instead he has merely asserted that they are like
categories of male/female and old/young, and he has not actually pursued
a comparison of his example with the Peircean trichotomies in order to
argue for his counter-intuitive assertion. So I think that we're still
awaiting an argument. If this argument is supposed to be in Robert
Marty's book, then perhaps Jean-Marc can summarize it. If Jean-Marc is
unprepared to do that, perhaps Robert can do it. > > Best,
Ben Udell
Which "Peirceans" are you thinking of? I'll tell you about the
Peirceans, concerning the ordering of the trichotomies.
First Peirce,
among the Peirceans, gives over the years five different orderings of the
trichotomies. Beginning with the triad (S, S-Od, S-If), then continuing
with the 6 trichotomies (1904 and 1908) in different orders and the finally
with the ten trichotomies (letter to Lady Welby 1908 and 8-344) yet
again in different orders - This is summarized on page 231 of Marty's
book.
None of the orderings are the same, by the way. This is for
Peirce's account.
Then two other authors Lieb (1977) and Kawama
(1976) listed in the same table propose a different ordering of the 10
trichotomies. Marty also mentions on the same page that Jappy proposed a
non-linear ordering of the trichotomies.
Then Marty claimed that some
of the trichotomies are redundant. (this is summarized in a mail dated
2006/06/16 sent to peirce-l which you most likely overlooked.) which would not
yield to 66 classes of signs but only 28.
Bernard Morand however claims
that there is no redundancy and that each trichotomy is independent.
is
this what you call "settled and fairly simple"? I think you have a very
simplified understanding of these
issues.
Best
/JM
---
Message from peirce-l forum to
subscriber [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
Message from peirce-l forum to
subscriber [EMAIL PROTECTED]
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free
Edition.
Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.9.0/368 - Release Date:
6/16/2006
|
