Edwina, Jon, Well, I couldn't possibly have said it better, Edwina. Jon, I agree--it's a very nice diagram indeed.
Best, Gary [image: Gary Richmond] *Gary Richmond* *Philosophy and Critical Thinking* *Communication Studies* *LaGuardia College of the City University of New York* *C 745* *718 482-5690* On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 6:06 PM, Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> wrote: > Hmm - rather interesting...Actually- very, very nice. > > What I like about it is the networking. No sign, eg, the triad, exists > 'per se' on its own; it's always networked with other signs, both near and > far - and even - parts/nodes of other signs. And I like the nested > complexity, with each part interacting, adding to..other parts. > > So, I like your Immediate. Object-connection to the Immediate > Interpretant. BOTH are internal, and you've connected them...with the > mediation of the Representamen in between. A kind of internal semiosic act. > > Then, you've expanded the network with the external realm - the Dynamic > Object linked with the Dynamic Interpretant, again, with the mediation of > the Representamen. An external semiosic act, with the internal nested > within it. Very nice... > > And, your Final Interpretant linked with the Representamen...AND with the > external Dynamic Object. Very nice... > > It's an active, complex and evolving interaction.....Really- very well > done. > > Edwina > > ----- Original Message ----- > *From:* Jon Alan Schmidt <[email protected]> > *To:* Gary Richmond <[email protected]> ; [email protected] > *Cc:* Peirce-L <[email protected]> > *Sent:* Monday, August 24, 2015 5:53 PM > *Subject:* [PEIRCE-L] Semeiotic Visualization > > Gary, Edwina, List: > > Since the subject came up ... > > Last week, while wrestling with the three interpretants and their proper > order of determination, I was playing around with some speculative > diagrams--not of the Peircean triad, but of the ten trichotomies. I ended > up with this as a rough first pass. > > [image: Inline image 1] > > The correlates are points, the dyadic relations are lines, and the triadic > relations are planes; except that the bottom of the tetrahedron consists > entirely of signs, all of which are in the same causal relation to the > dynamic object as described by Hulswit--formal (necessary condition) for > icons, efficient for indexes, or final for symbols. The immediate object > and interpretant are closely bound to the sign itself. The dynamic > interpretant tends toward the final interpretant. > > Thoughts? Please be gentle ... > > Jon > > On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 4:09 PM, Gary Richmond <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> ET: Just a brief comment - Nadin uses the triangle as an image for the >> Peircean triad - and I consider this a problem. The image of the triangle >> is closed and linear; the best image for the Peircean triad is the one >> Peirce himself used: (1.347), the three-spoked umbrella. It's not linear; >> it's interactive; it enables, importantly, networking...for no Peircean >> sign exists on its own; it's always networked. >> >> >> I myself don't have that much of a problem with this use of the triangle. >> For one thing, Peirce *does* use the triangle, notably in the famous >> Welby diagram, to show triadic relations in semiotics. Granted, these are >> analytically 'frozen' relations, so speak, but they are quite convenient in >> certain cases. Indeed they can, as in the Welby diagram, reveal information >> wjocj other diagrammatic techniques wouldn't show as well (for example, the >> central trikon which you have occasionally referred to in the Welby >> diagram; and there are other relations the Welby triangle reveals). But I >> agree with you that for many purposes the three-pronged figure is "more >> iconic" than the triangle. >> >> But, just to argue this a bit further, draw three lines from the vertices >> of an equilateral triangle to its center and you have the three-spoked >> figure. This is to say that the triangle implies the three-spokes, while a >> particular abstracted diagram may not require it. So, again, and in a word, >> I don't think one need insist on the three-spoked figure in all instances. >> But I would tend to agree with you that for many purposes (beyond certain >> analytical ones such as the classification of sign types) that the >> three-spoked figure is preferable for the reasons you gave. >> > ------------------------------ > > > ----------------------------- > 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 > . > > > > >
----------------------------- 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 .
