Aw: [PEIRCE-L] Interpretants, Sign Classification, and 3ns (was Who, What, When, Where, How, and Why)

[Helmut Raulien]

Jon, John, List,

 

The answer "A brooch" looks like a rheme, but as an answer it is a proposition, as "he gives her" is just omitted for the reason, that both know this opening. A triadic proposition, I think, if not already is an argument, at least involves a "because". For example if you say; "He gives her a brooch" involves, that he is able of giving something, because he has a brooch. "Egbert has a cat and a dog" involves, that the "and" can be said, because "a cat" has already been mentioned, so "a dog" can be added.


 

Best, Helmut

 

16. Februar 2024 um 03:47 Uhr
Von: "Jon Alan Schmidt" 
 



John, List:
 

At the risk of belaboring the point, I will take one more stab at showing why I think that Peirce would not have agreed with distinguishing 1ns, 2ns, and 3ns by aligning them with the answers to who/what/when/where, how, and why questions as (allegedly) monadic, dyadic, and triadic.

 

If I ask, "Who retrieved the book?" and you reply, "My dog," then from a logical standpoint, you are not merely uttering the name of a monadic relation, you are asserting the dyadic proposition that your dog retrieved the book. If I ask, "What did the man give his wife?" and you reply, "A brooch," then from a logical standpoint, you are not merely uttering the name of a monadic relation, you are asserting the triadic proposition that the man gave his wife a brooch.

 

Put another way, a who or what question is often a rheme, such that the answer fills in the blank to complete the proposition. "___ retrieved the book" becomes "My dog retrieved the book." "The man gave his wife ___" becomes "The man gave his wife a brooch." The key is not the word that begins the question, but the nature of what is missing in the mind of the inquirer until it is supplied by the respondent.

 

In fact, sometimes the answer to a what question is the name of a dyadic or triadic relation. "What did your dog do with the book?" "My dog retrieved the book." "What did the man do with the brooch?" "He gave it to his wife."

 

A when or where question is even less straightforward. If I ask, "When did the man give his wife the brooch?" and you reply, "On Valentine's Day," this is only informative if I already know that Valentine's Day is February 14 and what today's date is--there is an unavoidably indexical aspect here. If I ask, "Where did the datestone hit the Jinnee?" and you reply, "In the eye," this just changes the relevant proposition from "The datestone hit the Jinnee" to "The datestone hit the Jinnee's eye."

 

Again, a how question need not have a dyadic answer. If I ask, "How are you?" and you reply, "I am cold" (after shoveling snow), then you are obviously asserting a monadic proposition. If I ask, "How did the man celebrate Valentine's Day?" and you reply, "He gave his wife a brooch," then you are obviously asserting a triadic proposition.

 

Likewise, a why question need not have a triadic answer. If I ask, "Why are you shivering?" and you reply, "I am cold," then you are obviously asserting a monadic proposition. If I ask, "Why did the man give his wife a brooch?" and you reply, "He was celebrating Valentine's Day," then you are obviously asserting a dyadic proposition.

 


These examples illustrate the imprecision and resulting flexibility of natural languages. The fact that information can be added to or subtracted from someone's answer to a question in ordinary conversation reflects the context-dependency of both utterances, as well as the dialogic nature of human semiosis. Consequently, it is better to stick with Peirce's own paradigmatic conceptions for distinguishing 1ns/2ns/3ns as discovered in phaneroscopy, namely, quality/reaction/mediation.


 

Regards,

 





Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA

Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian

www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt / twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt







 


On Thu, Feb 15, 2024 at 3:32 PM John F Sowa  wrote:



I have to shovel snow right now, but I'll briefly explain the two sentences.

 

JAS> 

        JAS: How did the woman obtain the brooch? Her husband gave it to her. 



JFS: The verb 'give' is triadic. It implies a dyadic physical transfer (answer to How) plus the reason why: a gift includes the reason why the transfer was made.




 

The question begins with the word "How," not "Why"; and by your own admission, the answer is triadic, thus a genuine example of 3ns by your criterion. "Why did the woman's husband give her the brooch?" is a completely different question that would require a completely different answer.

 

By including the verb 'give' in the answer, her husband gave a triadic answer to a dyadic question.  That includes more information than was requested.  In the other question, with the word 'why', the answer stated less information, and the person who asked would typically ask a follow-on question to get the reason why.

 

The possibility that the answer might not contain exactly 

Aw: [PEIRCE-L] Interpretants, Sign Classification, and 3ns (was Who, What, When, Where, How, and Why)

[Helmut Raulien]

 

 
Supplement: Ok, I can access Commens Dictionary again!

 



John, List,

 

The answer to "why", "because" always needs two premisses, with itself being the third. So a thirdness is the answer to "why". Firstness can just say "I". Secondness is a second following a first, and so can say "I am". Obviously, just by having a first for predecessor, not because of something (An observer can say, that it can say "I am", because of that, but the secondness, subjectively, cannot say so, as it doesn´t have the ability of inference. It only has the propositional ability to say "I am"). Thirdness can say "I am, because", because a cause (an argument) needs two sequentally related ancestors to be one. I really think, that the Peircean categories basicly, like this, rely on the sheer numbers one, two, three. BTW, I have two questions:

 

-Can I see anywhere in the internet the mathematical proof, that a triad is irreducible, but a four-ad is reducible?

 

-I donot have access anymore to the Commens Dictionary. Is something wrong with my computer, or with the website?

 

Best, helmut

 

 
 

15. Februar 2024 um 19:17 Uhr
Von: "John F Sowa" 
 



Jon, List,

 

Thank you for noting that I had intended to push the SEND ALL button for my previous note (copied at the end).

 

But I stand by my claim that every example of Thirdness can be interpreted as an answer to a question that begins with the word "Why".

 

I agree with your point that every sign (which includes every sentence) is an example of Thirdness.  But that is not what I wrote above or in my previous notes,  Note the exact wording "example of Thirdness".  But in order to show an example of Thirdness, it's necessary to use signs of some sort (most likely words and sentences).  But I expect the readers to look beyond the signs to the examples of Thirdness that the words are used to indicate. 

 

If you disagree with my claim, please look beyond the words to the example of Thirdness.   Please find some example of Thirdness that cannot be found in a sentence that answers a why-question.  Or conversely, an answer to a why-question that does not contain an example of Thirdness, explict or implicit. 

 

And why do you think Peirce would disagree?  He was always looking for clear criteria to test and explain his theories.   I also prefixed by claim that he would be delighted to find such a simple test with the phrase "I believe".  I was not attributing any opinion to Peirce.  I was stating MY OPINION about his reaction.

 

And we should all remember that Peirce List is a collaboration, not a competition.   If somebody corrects one of our mistakes, we should thank them for the correction.   For example, I thank you for correcting my mistake below:

 

JFS> Can anybody find a genuine example of Thirdness that could not be the answer to a question that begins with the word "Why"? Conversely, can anybody find an example of Thirdness that could not be used as an answer to a question that begins with the word 'Why'?


 

JAS> These are both the same question. Maybe he intended the second one to be, "Can anybody find an example of an answer to a question that begins with the word 'Why' but is not a genuine example of 3ns?"


 

Yes, indeed.  I admit that I made a mistake in that statement.   But insults are never appropriate in any collaboration.  You have every right to state your opinions, right or wrong.  But an insult is never appropriate.  And by the way, you prefixed your insult with a mistaken claim:

 

JAS> Of course, I already fulfilled both requests, but he dismissed my counterexamples with a bunch of hand-waving. 

 

John

 

 


From: "Jon Alan Schmidt" 

 


Gary:
 

As always, I appreciate your positive feedback. I am starting to wonder if my recent flurry of List activity might finally result in a paper on speculative grammar.

 

JFS already replied to my post (see below) but did so off-List, sending it to me only, without changing the subject line or otherwise saying so. Along with his questions at the end that are directed to "anybody else who may be interested," this suggests that it was unintentional, such that he might eventually send it to the List after all.

 




JFS: Your comments confirm the fact that every example of Thirdness can be explained as the answer to a question that begins with word 'Why'.




 

Obviously, my comments do no such thing, and hopefully, others would readily see that for themselves.

 




JFS: Although Peirce hadn't mentioned that point, I think he would have been delighted if Lady Welby or some other correspondent had suggested it.




JFS: I realize that Peirce did not mention the connection between the word 'why' and every instance of Thirdness. But if somebody had mentioned that connection to him, I believe that he would have been delighted to have that simple test.



 

I honestly suspect that Peirce would have bluntly told JFS, Lady Welby, or anyone else making such a suggestion that it indicates a 

Aw: [PEIRCE-L] Interpretants, Sign Classification, and 3ns (was Who, What, When, Where, How, and Why)

[Helmut Raulien]

John, List,

 

The answer to "why", "because" always needs two premisses, with itself being the third. So a thirdness is the answer to "why". Firstness can just say "I". Secondness is a second following a first, and so can say "I am". Obviously, just by having a first for predecessor, not because of something (An observer can say, that it can say "I am", because of that, but the secondness, subjectively, cannot say so, as it doesn´t have the ability of inference. It only has the propositional ability to say "I am"). Thirdness can say "I am, because", because a cause (an argument) needs two sequentally related ancestors to be one. I really think, that the Peircean categories basicly, like this, rely on the sheer numbers one, two, three. BTW, I have two questions:

 

-Can I see anywhere in the internet the mathematical proof, that a triad is irreducible, but a four-ad is reducible?

 

-I donot have access anymore to the Commens Dictionary. Is something wrong with my computer, or with the website?

 

Best, helmut

 

 
 

15. Februar 2024 um 19:17 Uhr
Von: "John F Sowa" 
 



Jon, List,

 

Thank you for noting that I had intended to push the SEND ALL button for my previous note (copied at the end).

 

But I stand by my claim that every example of Thirdness can be interpreted as an answer to a question that begins with the word "Why".

 

I agree with your point that every sign (which includes every sentence) is an example of Thirdness.  But that is not what I wrote above or in my previous notes,  Note the exact wording "example of Thirdness".  But in order to show an example of Thirdness, it's necessary to use signs of some sort (most likely words and sentences).  But I expect the readers to look beyond the signs to the examples of Thirdness that the words are used to indicate. 

 

If you disagree with my claim, please look beyond the words to the example of Thirdness.   Please find some example of Thirdness that cannot be found in a sentence that answers a why-question.  Or conversely, an answer to a why-question that does not contain an example of Thirdness, explict or implicit. 

 

And why do you think Peirce would disagree?  He was always looking for clear criteria to test and explain his theories.   I also prefixed by claim that he would be delighted to find such a simple test with the phrase "I believe".  I was not attributing any opinion to Peirce.  I was stating MY OPINION about his reaction.

 

And we should all remember that Peirce List is a collaboration, not a competition.   If somebody corrects one of our mistakes, we should thank them for the correction.   For example, I thank you for correcting my mistake below:

 

JFS> Can anybody find a genuine example of Thirdness that could not be the answer to a question that begins with the word "Why"? Conversely, can anybody find an example of Thirdness that could not be used as an answer to a question that begins with the word 'Why'?


 

JAS> These are both the same question. Maybe he intended the second one to be, "Can anybody find an example of an answer to a question that begins with the word 'Why' but is not a genuine example of 3ns?"


 

Yes, indeed.  I admit that I made a mistake in that statement.   But insults are never appropriate in any collaboration.  You have every right to state your opinions, right or wrong.  But an insult is never appropriate.  And by the way, you prefixed your insult with a mistaken claim:

 

JAS> Of course, I already fulfilled both requests, but he dismissed my counterexamples with a bunch of hand-waving. 

 

John

 

 


From: "Jon Alan Schmidt" 

 


Gary:
 

As always, I appreciate your positive feedback. I am starting to wonder if my recent flurry of List activity might finally result in a paper on speculative grammar.

 

JFS already replied to my post (see below) but did so off-List, sending it to me only, without changing the subject line or otherwise saying so. Along with his questions at the end that are directed to "anybody else who may be interested," this suggests that it was unintentional, such that he might eventually send it to the List after all.

 




JFS: Your comments confirm the fact that every example of Thirdness can be explained as the answer to a question that begins with word 'Why'.




 

Obviously, my comments do no such thing, and hopefully, others would readily see that for themselves.

 




JFS: Although Peirce hadn't mentioned that point, I think he would have been delighted if Lady Welby or some other correspondent had suggested it.




JFS: I realize that Peirce did not mention the connection between the word 'why' and every instance of Thirdness. But if somebody had mentioned that connection to him, I believe that he would have been delighted to have that simple test.



 

I honestly suspect that Peirce would have bluntly told JFS, Lady Welby, or anyone else making such a suggestion that it indicates a serious misunderstanding of both his categories and his semeiotic.