Ben, Jon, All, Before I make the mistake of attempting a woozy (from the continuing effects of anesthesia) post addressed to both of you (and All), for now I'll address only Ben's remarks and hope to take up Jon's tomorrow. For now, anticipating my post tomorrow, my introducing this thread was to consider the *possible* implications of Spencer-Brown's idea of 'reentry' in consideration of the sign/Sign controversy (which was also Helmut's stated purpose), not to endorse it. Perhaps I should have made that clearer.
BU: "Why isn't the idea of semiosis itself good enough for the capitalized "Sign"? that you're discussing?" GR: "the triad itself in toto constitute[s] the Sign" BU: The triad itself in toto constitutes semiosis. I disagree. "A" sign, isolated, even "the triad itself in toto," does not constitute semiosis whatsoever. The single sign, the triad, is an analytical abstraction in Semeiotic Grammar. There is no such thing as an isolated sign except in that kind of analysis. What Jon quotes Andre de Tienne as saying regarding the moment in time applies, in my view, to semiosis as well: "Every moment is overlapped by the previous moment and each overlaps the next; no moment is isolated." So, "Every sign is overlapped by the previous sign and each overlaps the next; no sign is isolated." GR: "Seen this way, the Sign is *not* three static parts, but an active, self-referential loop." BU: Semiosis is not three static parts, but an active, self-referential loop. No one, I believe, actually thinks that semiosis itself is "three static parts" (the three 'parts' are all in consideration of the abstracted sign in itself). While the question remains as to how -- or even, if -- Spencer-Brown's idea of 'reentry' in the sense of its being a "self-referential loop" applies to semiosis. BU: A Greek word for "sign" is right in there in the word "semiosis". The "-osis" suffix connotes a becoming or action or process. The minimum case that makes sense has one object, one sign, and one interpretant - that's the minimum schema of a case of semiosis - it's the minimum schema that plots a genuinely triadic action. GR: I would again argue that 'sign' is *not* equivalent to semiosis. For there to be semiosis == sign action, multiple signs 'overlap' each other such that the middle part of one sign becomes the beginning of another (or something like that; I can't recall the Peirce quotation, but it's in Jon's paper). GR: "what makes a Sign is not the mere coexistence of sign, object, and interpretant, *but the dynamic process of the triadic relation reentering itself through the production of further interpretants*" BU: That's a quite recognizable description of semiosis: what makes a semiosis is not the mere coexistence of sign, object, and interpretant, *but the dynamic process of the triadic relation reentering itself through the production of further interpretants.* GR: It is my sense that those who, rightly or (I believe) wrongly, argue for the triad being the Sign, mean to express exactly that dynamic process. GR: "one could argue that the Sign is not simply the representamen or the representamen plus its object, that the Sign is the whole triadic relation of representamen, object, and interpretant *ensemble.* In this view, these three elements together form an inseparable unity such that if any part were missing, the sign would be incomplete" BU: We could equally well call the whole triadic relation "the semiotic Object" or "the Interpretant". The three elements (lower case) object, representamen, interpretant together form an an inseparable unity such that if any part were missing, the semiotic Object would be incomplete; or the Interpretant would be incomplete. GR: This strikes me as a bit labored. It doesn't matter what we call the "whole triadic relation" in consideration of an isolated sign being discussed in Semeiotic Grammar, any more than it matters that we might call Semeiotic Grammar, Speculative Grammar. The point is that the single, isolated sign doesn't exist *except for analysis*. GR: if any of the three 'parts' of a temporal "durée" were to be missing, there would be no Time. .... ...as it is in the *analysis* of Time, the central 'part' of the object - representamen - interpretant triad is 'more present'. BU: But we don't start calling time or durée "the Present", which would be the true parallel to calling the semiosis "the Sign". GR: Again, I don't believe *anyone* is calling "the Sign," 'semiosis', or 'semiosis' "the Sign." I believe that while those who mistakenly dismiss the notion of correlates in the Grammatical analysis of the sign -- so thoroughly analyzed by Peirce -- are, at worst, mistaken in taking the Sign to be in itself a 'moment' of semiosis (which it is obviously not, nor can be) or, at best, meaning to emphasize the processual nature of signs within semiosis, equally erroneous in consideration of the single sign. BU: Semiosis is sign action, is genuinely triadic action, in Peirce's view. GR: I believe we all agree on that! BU: There seems little difference between genuinely triadic action and genuinely triadic relation. With the phrase "triadic relation", we're supposing an abstraction from the triadic action, for intellectual convenience I guess. People could call triadic relation "trilation" for short. We discussed that a few decades ago, as I recall. GR: *Within semiosis* I agree that there "seems little difference between genuinely triadic action and genuinely triadic relation." But as you also noted, "triadic relation" does seem an abstraction from triadic action, perhaps better suited to Stoicheiology (or Stechiology if you prefer). Best Gary R On Thu, Jul 17, 2025 at 3:21 PM Benjamin Udell <[email protected]> wrote: > Gary R., all, > > Why isn't the idea of semiosis itself good enough for the capitalized > "Sign"? that you're discussing? > > GR: "the triad itself in toto constitute[s] the Sign" > > BU: The triad itself in toto constitutes semiosis. > > GR: "Seen this way, the Sign is *not* three static parts, but an active, > self-referential loop." > > BU: Semiosis is not three static parts, but an active, self-referential > loop. > > A Greek word for "sign" is right in there in the word "semiosis". The > "-osis" suffix connotes a becoming or action or process. The minimum case > that makes sense has one object, one sign, and one interpretant - that's > the minimum schema of a case of semiosis - it's the minimum schema that > plots a genuinely triadic action. > > GR: "what makes a Sign is not the mere coexistence of sign, object, and > interpretant, *but the dynamic process of the triadic relation reentering > itself through the production of further interpretants*" > > BU: That's a quite recognizable description of semiosis: what makes a > semiosis is not the mere coexistence of sign, object, and interpretant, *but > the dynamic process of the triadic relation reentering itself through the > production of further interpretants.* > > GR: "one could argue that the Sign is not simply the representamen or the > representamen plus its object, that the Sign is the whole triadic relation > of representamen, object, and interpretant *ensemble.* In this view, these > three elements together form an inseparable unity such that if any part > were missing, the sign would be incomplete" > > BU: We could equally well call the whole triadic relation "the semiotic > Object" or "the Interpretant". The three elements (lower case) object, > representamen, interpretant together form an an inseparable unity such that > if any part were missing, the semiotic Object would be incomplete; or the > Interpretant would be incomplete. > > GR: if any of the three 'parts' of a temporal "durée" were to be missing, > there would be no Time. .... > ...as it is in the *analysis* of Time, the central 'part' of the object - > representamen - interpretant triad is 'more present'. > > BU: But we don't start calling time or durée "the Present", which would be > the true parallel to calling the semiosis "the Sign". > > Semiosis is sign action, is genuinely triadic action, in Peirce's view. > > There seems little difference between genuinely triadic action and > genuinely triadic relation. With the phrase "triadic relation", we're > supposing an abstraction from the triadic action, for intellectual > convenience I guess. People could call triadic relation "trilation" for > short. We discussed that a few decades ago, as I recall. > > *Best, Ben* > On 7/16/2025 6:39 PM, Gary Richmond wrote: > > Jon, List, > > In footnote 22 of "Temporal Synechism" you note that Andre de Tienne asks > the question "to what extent does the flow of time regulate the flow of > signs, and to what extent does the flow of signs influence or determine the > flow of time?" This post is meant to begin a discussion of that question. > > Several days ago I had an off List exchange with Helmut Ralien which > included some comments of mine on an earlier Peirce-L post of his in which > he introduced the Spencer-Brown concept of 'reentry' into a discussion of > whether the sign (hereafter I'll use lowercase 'sign' to mean > 'representamen') was a mere correlate within the object - sign - > interpretant triad, or whether *the triad itself in toto* constituted the > Sign (uppercase 'Sign' standing for that idea in this post). > > I thought his introduction of Spencer-Brown's notion into the discussion > was brilliant, but I had some trouble following it. So, I made a few > suggestions as to how it might otherwise be approached. Here, with some > modifications related to the content of the recent thread on Time, is my > suggestion of an approach to the Spencer-Brown 'reentry' idea. > > Some argue, with considerable textual support from Peirce, that sign > (representamen), object, and interpretant are but correlates within a > triadic semiotic relation, others that the triadic relation itself *is* the > Sign: that is, that one could argue that the Sign is not simply the > representamen or the representamen plus its object, that the Sign is the > whole triadic relation of representamen, object, and interpretant > *ensemble.* In this view, these three elements together form an inseparable > unity such that if any part were missing, the sign would be incomplete -- > just as, if it were possible (which it obviously is not), if any of the > three 'parts' of a temporal "durée" were to be missing, there would be no > Time. > > Spencer-Brown’s concept of 'reentry' might help clarify the matter by > showing how a distinction can fold back into itself. In *Laws of Form*, > 'reentry' means that a distinction reenters the space it marks, creating > self-reference and recursion. In Peirce’s semeiotic, the interpretant is > itself most typically a new (or modified) sign, so the triad continually > regenerates itself in endless semiosis. > > Seen this way, the Sign is *no*t three static parts, but an active, > self-referential loop. Reentry suggests that what makes a Sign is not the > mere coexistence of sign, object, and interpretant, but *the dynamic > process of the triadic relation reentering itself through the production of > further interpretants. Thus, from the standpoint of 'reentry', the sign is > the living triadic distinction continually folding back on itself -- not a > static correlate, but a process.* > > In this view, it is only as an analytical contrivance in speculative > grammar that the distinction of object - sign - interpretant as correlates > holds. Rather, as it is in the *analysis *of Time, the central 'part' of > the object - representamen - interpretant triad is 'more present'. That is > all. > > Best, > > Gary R > > > > _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ > 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 [email protected] . > ► To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message NOT to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] with > UNSUBSCRIBE PEIRCE-L in the SUBJECT LINE of the message and nothing in the > body. More at https://list.iu.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. > > _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ > 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 [email protected] > . > ► To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message NOT to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] > with UNSUBSCRIBE PEIRCE-L in the SUBJECT LINE of the message and nothing in > the body. More at https://list.iu.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.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 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 [email protected] . ► To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message NOT to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] with UNSUBSCRIBE PEIRCE-L in the SUBJECT LINE of the message and nothing in the body. More at https://list.iu.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.
