Gary F., List, Gary, I'm glad my recent posts have got you considering extending your 'mini-study'. For now I'd like to address but one point. You quoted me then commented:
[Y]ou mention here the “triadic quasi-movement whereas the object (2ns) determines the sign (1ns) for the interpretant sign (3ns).” It occurs to me that it might be better to label the object 2c, or #2, for Second Correlate rather than 2ns, and the same for 1ns and 3ns. But that’s because I’m thinking in the context of Peirce’s NDTR. It seems to me that the analysis of correlates in NDTR relates specifically to the analysis and classification of signs. I see that classification as analytical at an entirely different level than that of semiosic determination. This is to say that I believe that the categorial analysis of semiosis is correct in the sense that, as I wrote, "the object (2ns) determines the sign (1ns) for the interpretant sign (3ns)," using the abbreviation -ns as I characteristically do for -ness in speaking of the categories, for example, as they are employed in categorial vectors. In discussing semiosic 'determination' as such (or 'representation', or 'process', or any of the six quasi-movements through the categories which one can identify in Peirce (some quite explicitly given categorially by Peirce, for example, *Involution *contrasted with *Hegelian dialect *in "The Logic of Mathematics" (another "mirror image" by the way; and, I should add, the final two of the six mirror each other as well--perhaps we can discuss this further in the 'mirroring' thread). I would argue that Peirce is as, or nearly as, explicit regarding the categorial elements in semiosic determination. So I cannot agree with you that the correlate designation--your "2c or #2" (I would suggest 2cor as an abbreviation) for the Second Correlate--is correct for the analysis of semiosis as such, while altogether appropriate for the analysis of sign classes. To reiterate, it is my sense that the discussion of Correlates in NDTR is concerned *principally *with sign classification. Thus, we read this sort of thing: *2.240. It may be convenient to collect the ten classes of either set of ten into three groups according as all three of the correlates or dyadic relations, as the case may be, are of different natures, or all are of the same nature, or two are of one nature while the third is of a different nature.* However, I hope and expect that the continuation of this mini-study will shed more light on the topic I see that you've just now posted in this thread which post I haven't yet read). Best, Gary R [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 <718%20482-5690>* On Sun, Nov 29, 2015 at 12:01 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: > Gary R, > > > > These last two posts of yours have made this thread a lot more > interesting, to me at least, because they open up dimensions of the subject > that I hadn’t anticipated. Actually I was going to wrap up my mini-study > today, but now I think it may take awhile longer to draw out some of the > implications. > > > > I’ll insert my comments into your message below, and respond to your other > message separately, although (as I’ll argue there) the issues involved are > closely connected. > > > > Gary f. > > > > *From:* Gary Richmond [mailto:[email protected]] > *Sent:* 28-Nov-15 17:37 > > Gary F, list, > > > > Gary, your study is quite helpful and I look forward to its continuation. > Before I comment in a separate post on a remark you made in your most > recent installment, I'd like to say a few general things about semiosis as > distinct from the abstract involutional analysis of classes of possible > signs, exactly the table of ten classes. > > > > Everyone agrees that for Peirce semiosis is a triadic process. But, as > you've suggested, a confusion arises when his table of signs isn't put into > an appropriate context. As I see it, speaking now only of each of the ten > classes, it is *just *that, an abstract analysis of one of ten classes o > f *possible *signs*. *Further*,* even in the abstraction of Peirce's > table, some of these classes cannot stand on their own and must be part of > a more developed sign class when embodied (as you've already noted, Gary). > To try to keep this as uncomplicated at possible, I'll consider only the > first class, the rhematic iconic qualisign, or *qualisign* for short. > > > > Neither this sign nor any of the others of the ten classesr represent an > actual *semiosis* (being that triadic quasi-movement whereas the object > (2ns) determines the sign (1ns) for the interpretant sign (3ns). > > GF: Yes, I agree; to represent the actual semiosic *process*, we would > need a *series* of diagrams, of the kind Peirce called “moving pictures > of thought.” The triangular layout of the ten sign sign classes (EP2:296) > does not give us that; nor does a single graph in Peirce’s EG system. We > can introduce some sense of directional movement in diagrams by using > arrows of some kind (as your trikonic diagrams do, and as Vinicius Romanini > does in his Minute Semeiotic (beginning with > http://www.minutesemeiotic.org/?p=37); and I gather that Jeff Downard is > working on some such diagrams also.) But we still have to label the parts > of the diagram to make them look like quasi-*things*; and, chances are, > we will need various kinds of “moving pictures” to represent various kinds > of semiosis. The problem is that when we compare various diagrams that seem > to differ, we have to sort out those that differ in their labelling from > those that differ because their objects (the semiosic processes) differ. > And some will differ because of differences in context, too. > > > > For instance, you mention here the “triadic quasi-movement whereas the > object (2ns) determines the sign (1ns) for the interpretant sign (3ns).” It > occurs to me that it might be better to label the object 2c, or #2, for > Second Correlate rather than 2ns, and the same for 1ns and 3ns. But that’s > because I’m thinking in the context of Peirce’s NDTR; and at least in the > opening section of that essay, Peirce does not consider that particular > quasi-movement of determination, where the object determines the sign; he > only mentions the determination of the interpretant *by* the sign (CP > 2.241). Why is that? I’m not sure. > > > > This kind of thing introduces some ambiguity into our attempts to explain > the relationship between your trikonics and Peirce’s triangle of ten sign > types, for instance. But those relationships could be important for > understanding semiosis diagrammatically. I think the first stage in > bringing all these diagrams together is to apply the ethics of terminology > that requires us to use Peirce’s terms as exactly as he did, *when > possible* — and when it’s not possible, to invent new terms and avoid > those that Peirce used for some other purpose. And when we use > post-Peircean terms, we will have to define them as carefully as Peirce > defined his, before we apply them to the analysis of semiosic phenomena. > > > > Rather, each is a class of that *kind of representamen* which Peirce > calls a *sign *(thanks for making this point as clearly as you did, Gary, > and with definitive textual support, as far as I'm concerned). And each is > analyzed, *not* in the order of some impossible semiosis (in which absurd > case this first sign, the qualisign, might wholly nonsensically be termed > an iconic qualisignific rheme following the semiosic O -> S -> I formula > just mentioned]). > > > > Rather, Peirce analyzes them involutionally whereas the Interpretant (3ns) > *involves* the object (2ns) which in turn *involves* the sign itself > (1ns) in order to render, in this case, the class rhematic iconic > *qualisign * [following the *strictly analytical* formula, I involves O > involves S (note, Peirce refers to this both as the order of involution and > as the order of analysis, by which he means specifically categorial > analysis from 3ns, through 2ns, to 1ns]. > > GF: Here again I’ll have to ponder this further. It is obvious that 3ns > involves 2ns that involves 1ns, but in NDTR, Peirce only seems to speak of > sign types involving *other sign types*; I’m not sure that the > Interpretant “involves” the Object in the same way. > > > > So, the first sign of ten, the *qualisign*, when embodied *will be* rhematic > (qualitatively possible) in relation to its interpretant; it *will be* iconic > in relation to its object; and it *will be*, as *the very sign that it is*, > a sign of quality. Each of the ten classes require embodiment, and it is > only then that we can even begin to speak of semiosis. Most agree, I > assume, that the classification of signs belongs to semiotic grammar, the > analysis of *how* signs can signify (and closely related matters). > > GF: Yes, very well put, I think. > > > > I'll discuss your intriguing comment in a separate post with a different > Subject heading. > > > > Best, > > > > Gary > > > ----------------------------- > 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 .
