Gary F, List, Thanks for your comments, questions, and the attached manuscript snippet. I'll be reflecting on all of that--and more--in the next few days.
For now, and since you haven't yet explicitly addressed the mirroring notion here, Ifor now I'll copy a paragraph from my reply to you in the other thread, perhaps better placed here (I hope these two threads don't get too entwined). I wrote: "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. . .)." 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* On Sun, Nov 29, 2015 at 3:54 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: > Gary R, > > > > The idea that representing and determining are mirror images just occurred > to me as I was drafting that post. What didn’t occur to me was the > connection with your categorial vector analysis, although I’ve looked into > that before. (I didn’t know about the prior sources of the idea that you > cite.) The connection seemed obvious as soon as I saw your message, but now > I’m not sure that the example you give quite reflects what I had in mind. > These things tend to seem clear to me first thing in the morning, but less > so as the day wears on! So I don’t think I’m quite ready for the response I > had in mind earlier. > > > > Actually we can’t be sure that Peirce himself saw (or expressed) some of > these issues quite clearly. I’m attaching part of a page from Peirce’s > manuscript of NDTR, a part I’ve already quoted, where it seems he might > have changed his mind in the very act of writing about the respective roles > of First and Third correlates in R-O-I relations. (Thanks to Vinicius R. > for showing me this!) > > > > Gary f. > > > > *From:* Gary Richmond [mailto:[email protected] > <[email protected]>] > *Sent:* 28-Nov-15 17:47 > > Gary F, List, > > > > I'd like to comment briefly on a remark you made in your post today. > > > > GF: As far as I can see, Peirce does not attempt such a collection [a > third trichotomy, GR] in NDTR. That leaves Peirce’s third trichotomy of > Signs unaccounted for, so far; and *my guess is that this trichotomy can > only apply to genuine triadic relations, such as are embodied in the > processes of representing and determining — which in my opinion are both > genuine, partly because they are mirror images of each other.* But the > next paragraph contains the only replica of the word “genuine” in NDTR, and > Peirce does not use its antonym term “degenerate” here at all, so I’ll say > no more about it here.[emphasis added by GR] > > > > I agree. For me this "mirror image" is at the very least reinforced > categorially. This was first pointed out to me by Mats Bergman (I believe > in his doctoral dissertation) in referring to a paper by R. > Palmentier "Signs' Place in Medias Res: Peirce's Concept of Semiotic > Mediation." Semiotic Mediation: Sociocultural and Psychological > Perspectives. Ed. Mertz, Elizabeth & Parmentier. 1985. and which mirror > image I first discussed in a paper on Peirce's trichotomic theory,"Outline > of trikonic: Diagrammatic Trichotomic" in Section 5 on trichotomic vectors > (i.e., possible paths through the three categories, probably several > vectors occuring together in any actual semiosis). > > http://www.iupui.edu/~arisbe/menu/library/aboutcsp/richmond/trikonic.htm > > > > So, while all would agree that, for Peirce, when there is semiosis that > the object (2ns) *determines* the sign (1ns) for the interpretant sign > (3ns), Parmentier objects to Peirce's not drawing sufficient attention to > its mirror, *representation*. So, for example (and using the *kind* of > example Parmentier's gives): An interpretant/interpreter (3ns) within a > particular art form, say a brilliant and creative playwright, say > Shakespeare, out the wealth of his imagination could create a great and > influential art work, a play, say Hamlet (1ns: the entire play being a > sign, the character Hamlet being a sign, every word, every punctuation > mark, etc. of the work being a sign), bringing into quasi-existence a *virtual > world* of imagined relations (2ns). In this sense, *determination*: > 2ns/1ns/3ns categorially mirrors *representation*: 3ns/1ns/2ns. > > > > While I perhaps see Parmentier's point as regards the neglect by Peirce of > this categorial vector in art, I do not see that Peirce neglected it in his > primary focus, namely, science. Thus, to offer a very different example: An > interpretan/interpreter (3ns) within a particular field of science, say a > brilliant and creative theoretical physicist, say Einstein, out of the > tremendous storehouse of his scientific and mathematical knowledge and > creativity could hypothesize a great and influential theory, say, the > general theory of relativity (1ns: the entire theory being a sign, every > mathematical symbol, etc. being a sign), bringing into our scientific > understanding a *model *of the large-scale structure of our 'actual' > universe (2ns). [I've added a *very* brief note on trichotomic vector > analysis at '*' below my signature.] > > > > Now I don't know whether you had this categorial mirroring in mind when > you wrote what I just quoted above, Gary. In any case, I have given this > post a new subject heading in the interest of emphasing the "mirror image" > of 'determination' and 'representation'. > > > > Best, > > > > Gary R > > > > * [In my understanding, *this *"mirror" represents but two of six > possible vectors (again, paths through the categories) Note: in my paper > mentioned above, I first called the 'vector of 'involution', mentioned > above, the 'vector of analysis', but I now call it the path or order or > 'vector of involution' as closer to Peirce's meaning and usage. The other 5 > names have stayed the same: determination (i.e., semiotic determination), > process (which, btw, includes evolution and inquiry), representation, > aspiration (of the individual or community), order (shorthand for Hegelian > or dialectical order), and, of course, the 6th just mentioned, involution ( > again, the analysis of *categorial* involution commencing at 3ns). For > more on categorial vectors, see my paper linked to above. > > > > > > > > [image: Image removed by sender. 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> > > > ----------------------------- > 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 .
