Dear Tom, Jon, list My whole interest in Dicisigns come out of P's diagrammatology. So I would not reject a diagrammatic interpretation of propositions, quite on the contrary. Given P's system behind the trichotomies, Dicisigns form the 2nd level of the trichotomy pertaining to the interpretant, so it might not be strange they have a dual aspect. This is not in any way entailing semiotic dualism. (Which are those bedeviling interpretations you are talking about, Tom - there is no large literature on P's ideas of propositions?). But maybe we are going ahead of the story here - only in Ch. 3 I discuss the details of P's Dicisign doctrine. Ch. 1 is more about the overall relations between semiotic, logic, language, cognition etc. which I think P's Dicisign doctrine calls for a reinterpretatio of - particularly in its divorce between language and logic.
Best f Den 02/09/2014 kl. 18.53 skrev Tom Gollier <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> : I have to admit I'm with Jon in this discussion, at least insofar as the statement: "Peirce simply said that a Dicisign is a sign which is involved twice with one and the same object: 1) it refers to the object (P's generalization of the Subject part of a proposition; 2) it describes that object (P's generalization of the Predicate)." makes me wary. While it is consistent, as far as it goes, with a triadic/diagrammatic interpretation of propositions, it seems susceptible to those dyadic interpretations of propositions that have so bedeviled modern interpretations of Peirce.
----------------------------- 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 the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
