Joseph Ransdell wrote:
I was intending to warn Ben against adopting a bullying tone toward you, as
his frustration seemed to be mounting. Perhaps a mistake on my part but a
response in part to your own complaints about his tone, which you were
construing as an attempt to silence you. Also I had been about to answer
you with the same point that Ben made and didn't want to feel required to
duplicate it.
Joe
OK,
I searched the web for trichotomies + categories, found this article
which I think is symptomatic of the risk entailed by mixing trichotomies
with categories:
http://www.chass.toronto.edu/french/as-sa/ASSA-No10/No10-A2.html
I reads half-way through the article:
= QUOTE ==========
The first division of the three trichotomies is identical with Firstness
and the representamen, and it consists of Qualisign, Sinsign and
Legisign. It is worth noticing that the first trichotomy consists of
(non)sign, i.e. signs which do not relate to anything; they are monadic
and exist sui generis. But still, they form the basis for the creation
of meaning.
= END QUOTE ==========
there is a confusion here: the first trichotomy is concerned with signs
that *are* signs - it does not produce "would-be" signs or "non-signs"
cut from all relations.
this echoes what Bernard mentioned in a previous message, namely the
false impression that classifications create objects when in reality
these objects have no existence outside the context of the classification.
/JM
---
Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber archive@mail-archive.com
