Peirce and the cabbala

Peirce was well prepared for the classification business having as a student to sort out fossil brachiopods for his professor Agassiz, author of an essay on classification. Moreover he had read, as Fisch reports, WhatelyÌs ‘Elements of Logic’ (as he was eleven years old!) and Kant's ‘Critic of the Pure Reason’. In 1867 he publishes his ‘New List of Categories’ that later evolved to a full-fledged pan semiotic System, as Eco calls it,  of basically ten different species of Signs assorted in three main categories or types: 
 
 

	the first and most immediately perceivable group (4 species) is iconically highlighted
	the second group (3 species) determined by inductive relations is indexically highlighted
	the third (3 species) entering the reach of metaphysics is symbolically determined

Icon, Index and Symbol are just some of the names with which Peirce labeled his categories, others, still more difficult to understand, signify the single sign species in further detail . 

Floyd Merrell is a good guide for those that want to enter in the quite complex peircian Theory of Signs. In this page I refer mainly to his ‘Semiosis in the Postmodern Age’, Perdue University Press, Indiana, 1995. He gives on p.95 the following list of the ten fundamental  peircian ‘classes of signs’ (as he calls them) together with some most elementary examples: 
 
 

As Roman Jakobson  observes, Peirce was interested in the medieval obsession with language theory, universal grammar and the relative classification of signs, and the names of many illustrious medieval philosophers occur in his writings. 
I am not informed if Raimondo Lullo (1235-1315), another famous philosopher of that age, is mentioned by Peirce; this spanish thinker said that the simple elements that are at the foundation of all reality, such that science and logic, are identical and that they are a ‘book from which we can learn to understand God’. He classifies ten universal categories, both logical and ontological, in his ‘Ars Brevis’ by means of characters and other symbols organized in concentric circles and other geometrical figures. 
 

from a XVI. Cent. edition of ‘Ars Brevis’ by R.Lullo

The use of diagrams to present the relations between categories or objects has been popular in all times so that we can even speculate if these figures are not really antecedent to the formulation of ideas in general. It is a visual means of classifying, just as Peirce intended: "I do not think I ever reflect in words: I employ visual diagrams, firstly because this way of thinking is my natural language of self-communion, and secondly, because I am convinced that it is the best system for the purpose" (MS 620:8). We can also mention his fascination with the number 3: he affirms that any classification can in extremis be reduced  to three categories. Furthermore he converted, though not always an active communicant (1), to the trinitarian theology of the Episcopalian church and, as we can read in his Lowell Lectures, he does not hesitate to recognize the implications for his Theory of Signs: 
 
 

These remarks are tantamount to a confession of the existence of a geometric and numerical relation between Peirce’s classification of signs and his metaphysics and probably to the influence of medieval thought as well. If we take the fact that he mentioned ‘wisdom’ ,which corresponds to ‘chockmah’, a category in cabalistic sign system as we will see later, something keeps telling me that Peirce was interested in the medieval cabbala and probably used it as a guideline for his classification of signs. Floyd Merrell did not mention this, as far as I know, but he came very near to it when he analyses the configuration of the ten terms of the Peircian sign system, especially talking about the genesis or semiosis or generacy of signs. 

Let us take a look at the cabbala as it is known among jewish as well as christian thinkers, in the middle ages and later. The cabbalah belongs, as Gershom Scholem  says, to an impressive complex of writings and orally transmitted traditions of Hebraic mysticism, especially dedicated to the exegesis of the most important of them: the Torah or Pentateuch (the first five books of the Bible). The Torah is considered a cryptic revelation, by means of the mystical signification of its characters, of the meaning of all being: to the initiated a hidden and living God is manifest in the combinatory of its letters and their numerical meaning. 
This is in other words a medieval version of the classification of signs that represent reality and through realty, divinity. These signs are classified in categories called sephiroth, ten of them (Such is the revelation by Avraham Abulafi, Joseph Gikatulla, Moseh De Leòn, and other theosophs of the XII.th. cent.). God manifests himself through these attributes or areas of emanation, fundamental archetypal powers of al being. The ten sephiroth moreover are divided in four ‘worlds’, ‘emanation’, creation’, ‘formation’ and ‘production’. 
At the same time a graphical representation of the ten sephiroth as parts of a ‘tree of life’ became popular. We can read about this tree in the first book about the cabbala ‘Bahir’ from the Languedoc in southern France by an anonymous author (1180) 

Colin's Hermetic Kabbalah Page informs us as follows: 

The  Tree is composed of 10 states or  sephiroth  (sephiroth plural,  sephira singular) and 22 interconnecting paths.  The age of  this diagram is unknown:  there is enough information in  the 13th.  century "Sepher ha Zohar" to construct this  diagram,  and the  doctrine of the sephiroth has been attributed to  Isaac  the Blind in the 12th.  century,  but we have no certain knowledge of its  origin.  It  probably originated sometime  in  the  interval between the 6th.  and 13th.  centuries AD. The origin of the word "sephira"  is unclear - it is almost certainly derived from the Hebrew word for "number" (SPhR),  but it has also been attributed to the Greek word for "sphere" and even to the Hebrew word for  a sapphire (SPhIR).  With a characteristic aptitude for discovering hidden meanings everywhere, Kabbalists find all three derivations useful, so take your pick. 

We read  on the tree of life in the site of Auriel Kabbalah as follows:

"The primary glyph of Kabbalism, the Tree of Life or Otz Chiim, is the key to mastering the symbolism and the secrets of Kabbalah. All qualities, ideas and objects can be attributed a place on the tree and the tree serves as a mnemonic device for the Kabbalist.A symbolic guidebook to other realms, a theology treatise and a practical meditation manual are all contained in symbolic form in the spheres and paths of the Tree of Life." 

a sephiroth tree from a XV.th.cent. transcription of  the ‘Zohar’ (the book of radiance), from 1280 look at the famous  Tree of Life by Kircher

* the roman numeration is mine; the color code referrs to the sephiroth tree below (AvO) 

The ancient Cabbalah has recently attracted many as numerous sites in the internet testify; however not all of them are interesting in my view as I am allergic to mystification. But if we do find, as perhaps Peirce was, significant indications in the direction of a better understanding of semiotics, they are worth investigating. Even Umberto Eco was apparently attracted by the cabbalah as those that did read his ‘Foucault's Pendulum’ can acknowledge: the names of the different chapters correspond to the sephiroth. 

It struck me that Peirce has organized his ten species in a manner analog to the sephiroth in three categories, (taking the fourth inside the third). Has he read the ‘Heptaplus’, or the ‘900 theses from the ‘Conclusiones philosophica, cabalisticae et theologicae’ both referring to the interpretative techniques of the Cabbalah, by Pico della Mirandola (1463-1494) or ‘De arte cabbalistica’ by his contemporary John Reuchlin (1455-1522); or the ‘Corpus Hermeticum’ by  Marsilio Ficino (1433-1499) or, as probable, the "Stromates" by the christian hermetic greek philosopher Clement of Alexandria (150ca-215ca), inpirator of the here above mentioned thinkers,  in which he distinghuishes in the symbolism in hieroglyphic writing the same three categories, imitative, figurative and allegorical ? 

For Peirce our perceptions are ineluctably signs and these signs are emanations of the divine creation, objects of our rational analysis. Even our concepts and words are signs and signs of signs. We can illustrate these correspondences between the peircian species and categories of signs and those of the Sephiroth tree (the numeration in this tree follows Peirce’s list inverting the traditional cabbalah order). 
 
 
 
  

symbolicity  highlighted

indexicality  highlighted

iconicity  highlighted

click this image if you want to have a look at the new sephiroth tree with  the mention of the peircean categories

The evolution of signs from their most elementary form as a Qualisign into ever more significant forms and intricate meanings towards the Iconic Legisign (that represents a general concept, e.g. its representation in the form of a diagram), and ultimately to the ‘argument’, or a self contained universe of final interpretation of reality as perceived, (a belief in the definition of Peirce), is called semiosis. Just as signs can move in that direction they can proceed in the opposite direction stripping the sign of its meanings, banalizing it. This process of de-generation of signs is the unavoidable course of our post-modern multimedial society as Jean Baudrillard gloomily asserts. It can be compared to ‘the shattering of the vases’ or Shevirah in the cosmogony of the cabbala. For the cabbalist, the divine light is to strong to be contained in the material world or ‘vases’ so that they shatter and this world is just left with the fragments and some sparks of light. It is the human task to repair or mend the pieces in a process, called Tiqqun, of restoring meaning, in other words semiosis. 

As I said in the beginning, these connections between the Sephiroth and the peircian categories are merely an intuition (Peirce would have called it an ‘abduction’) and parallels with other philosophers leading to homogeneities in different metaphysical sign theories could be indicated. My option for the cabbalistic way is purely instrumental, one way to stimulate reflection. My ultimate goal is to clarify the ways of industrial design in the form of a design theory based on the (shaky) premise that also design has a proper language. In the next page I will pursue in that direction attacking it from a totally different though convergent angle: the Ur-sign. 

1.Max H.Fisch, ‘The Peirce Edition Project’, Introduction to  Volume 1. 
2. Umberto Eco, 'Il Segno, ISEDI, Milan, 1973, p.94 
3. I use the term ‘species’ for the collection of single distinguishable items contained in a ‘category’ 
4. Some of the medieval thinkers Peirce mentioned are: 

 
• Berengario (1008-1088) bishop of Canterbury,.who said that he believes only in what he can perceive with his senses; 
• Anselmo d’Aosta (1033-1109), who anticipates the theory of suppositions that Peirce 800 years later recognized as Abduction ; 
• Roscellino (1050-1120), who claims the diversity of the single components of the  Holy Trinity and 
• his pupil the unruly Peter Abelardo (1079-1142), emasculated because loving a non and against the official church proclaiming the idea of ‘universality’ a purely mental operation; 
• John of Salisbury (1110-1180) asserting in his ‘Metalogon’ the validity of logical reasoning; 
• Duns Scoto (1265-1308), who opts for a compromise between franciscan nominalism of Roscellini and Abelardo and the universalism of the dominicans; 
• the famous William of Occam (1280-1349) who advocates to prefer in all occasions simplicity over complicated explanations, especially in absence of proof by actual experience. 

6. Roman Jakobson, ‘Glosses on the Medieval Insight into the Science of Language’, 1974,  it.tr. ‘ Lo sviluppo della semiotica’, Milan, 1978, p.71

7. Floyd Merrell,‘Semiosis in the Postmodern Age’, Perdue University Press, Indiana, 1995, p.138 ff.

8.Gerschom Scholem, ‘Zur Kabbala und ihrer Symbolik’, Suhrkamp, Frankfurt, 1995 p.50 ff., (1973) 

9.Daniel C.Matt, ‘The essential Cabbala, the hart of Jewish Mysticism’, HarperCollins, San Francisco, 1996, p.8ff 

10. Gerschom Scholem, ‘Zur Kabbala und ihrer Symbolik’, Suhrkamp, Frankfurt, 1995, p.121., (1973). 
10a. Johanna Drucker, "The Alphabetic Labyrith. The Letters in History and Imagination", 1999 (1995) p.92

11. Floyd Merrell, ‘Signs Grow: Semiosis and Life Processes’, Toronto, 1996, p.7 

12. Jean Baudrillard, ‘The extasy of Communication’ , Sylvere Lotringer, 1988 
 

some sites about Cabbala: 
 

 
• http://digital-brilliance.com/kab/index.htm
• http://www.kheper.auz.com/topics/Kabbalah/index.htm