JA:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/14182
JA:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/14184
SJ:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/14187
Sung, List,
Let's see if we can turn our discussion of these paltry stick figures to some
good purpose in the task at hand, namely, to investigate the uses (and abuses)
of diagrams and to examine the forms of understanding (and misunderstanding) to
which they give rise.
People have used these sorts of figures to illustrate the structures of triadic
sign relations for as long as I can remember, but their use depends on grasping
the stylistic conventions that determine their intended interpretation. We can
call them "icons" without being totally wrong, but the meaning of an icon always
depends on knowing what features or structures of its object it bears in common.
Because these figures depend on knowing or guessing the stylistic conventions
involved in their use, they are also symbols, and very much so.
To be continued ...
Jon
Sungchul Ji wrote:
(For undistorted figures and table, see the attached PDF file.)
Jon cites the following post he wrote on 6/11/2002:
"I am still a few hypotheses shy of an explanation of all that (091914-1)
our Mister Tuesday Afternoon was saying just now, or a little
while ago, about icons and indices, and their symmetries, but
I am under the perhaps too facile impression that I have long
understood the gist of it, by dint of the particular examples
that arise in my application to systems theory, many of which
seem to fit the pattern of what Peirce seems to be describing.
And so, here for comparison is the picture of an iconic sign:
o-----------------------------o-----------------------------o
| Objective Framework | Interpretive Framework |
o-----------------------------o-----------------------------o
| |
| q o |
| ·· |
| · · |
| · · |
| · · |
| · · |
| · · |
| · · |
| · · |
| · v |
| · o u |
| · / |
| v / |
| x o------@ |
| \ |
| \ |
| o v |
| |
o-----------------------------------------------------------o
| Sign u is an Icon of Object x by Virtue of Property q |
o-----------------------------------------------------------o
And here is the putatively dual figure of an indexical sign:
o-----------------------------o-----------------------------o
| Objective Framework | Interpretive Framework |
o-----------------------------o-----------------------------o
| |
| o u |
| / |
| / |
| x o------@ |
| ^ \ |
| · \ |
| · o v |
| · ^ |
| · · |
| · · |
| · · |
| · · |
| · · |
| · · |
| · · |
| ·· |
| t o |
| |
o-----------------------------------------------------------o
| Sign v is an Index of Object x by Virtue of Instance t |
o-----------------------------------------------------------o
The reason that the indexical style of picture appears almost immediately
recognizable in a systems-theoretic context is because the state space of
a complex dynamic system is a setting in which "objects have instances".
In effect, an object is an abstract unity that comprises a collection of
components and connects a sequence of state points in an orbit over time.
Now, an "abstract unity" is a funny sort of thing -- it is partly a whole
and wholly a part, in other words, a whole in its own right that is merely
a face of some more complete and full-bodied whole. What this means in the
present setting is that we can view the whole system and the temporal state
of the whole system as objects, the latter being an "instant" of the former.
For example, two people in a dialogue may be viewed as a "dyadic system",
and each person's experience of the interaction is a facet of the whole.
One's experience is an index of the other's experience, and vice versa,
by virtue of their actual connection in the instantaneous state of the
whole system. And if one of them points to a common object, to which
the other independently or by dint of that pointer attends, then each
of their experiences, in that moment, becomes an index of that object.”
In [biosemiotics:2181] dated 2013 (?), I introduced the 4-node network
representation of the Peircean sign which was used in [biosemiotics:3365]
dated 8/16/2013 (partially reproduced below) to suggest a possible
relation among nominalism, constructivism , realism, and logic.
I think the 4-node network version of the Peircean sign (4-NNPS) (see
Figure 1 below) may be viewed as an alternative to Jon’s diagrams of the
Peircean sign reproduced above (see (091914-1)). Although 4-NNPS may be
missing some aspects of the Peircean sign that Jon’s diagrams are ideally
suited for , it may have some advantage as well. One such advantage
seems to be that it is logically integrated with the 9 types of ‘dyadic’
signs (see Table 1 below) that Peirce used to construct his 10 classes of
‘triadic’ signs (not shown). Of the 9 types of these what I called [1]
‘elementary ‘ signs, Jon’s diagrams mention only two, i.e., icon and
index.
One major difference between Jon’s diagrams and mine may be that the hub
of Jon’s network seems empty to me, since the symbol located there,
i.e., @, is not mentioned anywhere unless I missed it, whereas that of
mine is occupied by the Peircean sign itslef. This allows the sign in my
diagram posses three edges (and hence triadically related to R, O, and I),
whereas the sign in Jon’s diagram, u or v, are not triadic but dyadic,
each having only two edges. It is clear that Jon’s and my diagrams can
converge if Jon replaces @ with the tiadic sign of Peirce and u or v with
Representamen. In other words, Jon’s diagrams represent the “dyadic”
signs (or the elementary sign as I called them in [1]), whereas the 4-NNPS
contains both the “dyadic” (i.e., R, O, & I sign relations) and “triadic”
signs or sign relations (i.e., the R- S<R-I relation). (Let us remind
us that “a sign relation” is a sign. Not realizing this basic aspect of
the Peircean sign has led to many confusions and unnecessary debates on
these lists in the past couple of years.)
o-------------------------------------------------------------o
| Figure 1. An alternative diagram of the Peircean sign, S |
| |
| R = representamen |
| O = object |
| I = interpretant |
|-------------------------------------------------------------o
| |
| |
| R |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| S |
| / \ |
| / \ |
| / \ |
| O I |
| |
| |
| |
o-------------------------------------------------------------o
_______________________________________________________________
Table 1. The 9 types of “elementary” signs of Peirce [1]
_______________________________________________________________
Sign (S) Firstness Secondness Thidness
_______________________________________________________________
R qualisign sinsign legisign
O icon index symbol
I rheme dicisign argument
________________________________________________________________
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
(A partial reproduction of [biosemiotics:3365] dated 8/16/2013)
Statement (3363-2) is a Peircean sign (a very complex one, called
‘argument symbolic legisign’). I introduced in [biosemiotics:2181] the
4-node network representation of a sign:
Representamen
|
|
|
Sign
/ \
/ \
/ \
Object Interpretant
Figure 1. A diagrammatic representation of the three relations of a sign.
If all signs can be represented graphically as in Figure 1, Statement
(3363-2) should also be representable as a 4-node network. One such
attempt is shown in Figure 2.
“Constructed images”
(Representamen)
CONSTRUCTIVISM/NOMINALISM
|
|
|
Sign
/ \
/ \
/ \
“Naturally necessary “Logically necessary
consequents” consequents”
(Object) (Interpretant)
REALISM LOGIC
Figure 2. The Hertz thesis (see quoted phrases) expressed as a Peircean
sign (see the parentheses) demonstrating the irreducible triadicity of
nominalism, realism and logic.
- - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
With all the best.
Sung
___________________________________________________
Sungchul Ji, Ph.D.
Associate Professor of Pharmacology and Toxicology
Department of Pharmacology and Toxicology
Ernest Mario School of Pharmacy
Rutgers University
Piscataway, N.J. 08855
732-445-4701
www.conformon.net
Reference:
[1] Ji, S. (2014). The Quark Model of Peircean Signs. In: Semiotics
of Life: A Unified Theory of Molecular Machines, Cells, the Mind,
Peircean Signs, and the Universe based on the Principle of
Information-Energy Complementarity. PDF available at
http://www.conformon.net under Publications > Proceedings and Abstract.
Pp. 78-85.
--
academia: http://independent.academia.edu/JonAwbrey
my word press blog: http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/
inquiry list: http://stderr.org/pipermail/inquiry/
isw: http://intersci.ss.uci.edu/wiki/index.php/JLA
oeiswiki: http://www.oeis.org/wiki/User:Jon_Awbrey
facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/JonnyCache
-----------------------------
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 .
