I have always felt that the rhematic-indexical-legisign (1-2-3) with its Interpretant in a mode of Firstness) is the basic Peircean Sign, in that it operates with an abductive openness to other Signs while including ALL modes within itself, which the Dicents (with the Interpretant in a mode of Secondness) operate within an inductive empiricism, and the Argument operates in a deductive mode.
Edwina ----- Original Message ----- From: Gary Richmond To: Peirce-L Cc: Benjamin Udell Sent: Monday, November 30, 2015 3:56 PM Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] RE: signs, correlates, and triadic relations Gary, Sung, Helmut, List, This is all quite intriguing. To add to the intrigue, consider this diagram of the 10 classes of signs, here represented by an equilateral triangle placed on its side to show certain features to be discussed. For each of the 10 sign classes, the number at the vertex to the right represents the correlate re: the interpretant; that at the vertex at the bottom, the correlate re: the object; and the vertex at the top, the correlate re: the sign itself. [It might be helpful to print out this diagram--easily cut and pasted--and compare it to a version which has each sign class numbered and named. (Thanks to Ben Udell for this suggestion as well as creating this image from a handwritten version of mine for a ppt show, and for reversing the colors to make it easier to print out if so desired.)] Diagram observation: Imagine, for a moment, that the large triangle containing all 10 sign classes is composed of three groups of three sign classes each positioned around a central triangle, a kind of singularity, (6) = rhematic indexical legisign (of which a word later). [Ben also once made a slide for me of the above diagram clearly showing the 3 positioned around the central triangle, but I haven't been able to locate it.] Group 1 of 3: In each of the sign classes in the triangle group of three classes at the top left: (1) = rhematic iconic qualisign, (2) = rhematic iconic sinsign, (5) = rhematic iconic legisign, the correlates (following the bent arrow, so reading involutionally from the interpretant, through the object, to the sign itself) are exactly the same (rhematic iconic), and only the sign itself changes, for class (1) = qualisign, for (2) = sinsign, for (5) = legisign. Note also that two of the correlates of each sign class are firsts, and for class one (1) all are firsts. Group 2 of 3: Dropping now to the triangle group at the bottom left. (3) = rhematic indexical sinsign, (4) = dicent indexical sinsign, (7) = dicent indexical legisign, note that at least 2 of the correlates of each sign class are seconds. and for class (4), all are seconds. (Two classes are sinsigns, only the third is a legisign) Group 3 of 3: Next, moving to the third triangle group at the right. (8) = rhematic symbolic legisign, (9) = dicent symbolic legisign, (10) = argumentative symbolic legisign, note that at least two of the correlates are thirds, and for class (10) all are thirds. Interestingly (at least to me), a kind of mirror of the top left triangle group involving mainly firsts, in this final group only the corrolate associated with the interpretant changes (distinguishing these symbolic legisigns as, respectively, rheme, dicent, and argument), while the two remaining correlates are in each case symbolic legisigns. Each of the three groups of three sign classes would seem to represent a kind of trichotomy. In addition, the three groups of three classes taken together also represent a kind of trichotomy (that is, in both cases, a categorial trichotomy). Also note that at the three vertices of the large triangle we have, respectively, 1/1/1, 2/2/2, 3/3/3. Finally, note that only the central singular triangle reads 1/2/3 (has all 3 numerals as collorary markers). I'd be interested in what forum members make of any of this, especially in relation to what has already been discussed, and especially in consideration of Gary F's two outlines of the 10 classes and the tree figure which he provided. Best, Gary R 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 6:59 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: Continuing our study of NDTR: Having narrowed his topic from triadic relations in general to those of the type R-O-I, and then further to the Representamen as First Correlate of that relation, and finally to the Sign as the best-known type of Representamen, Peirce introduces the three trichotomies into which Signs can be divided: CP 2.243. Signs are divisible by three trichotomies: first, according as the sign in itself is a mere quality, is an actual existent, or is a general law; secondly, according as the relation of the sign to its object consists in the sign's having some character in itself, or in some existential relation to that object, or in its relation to an interpretant; thirdly, according as its Interpretant represents it as a sign of possibility or as a sign of fact or a sign of reason. [Clearly the order here — both the order of the trichotomies, and the order within each trichotomy — is from simple to complex. When Peirce later defines each of the ten sign types, his numbering of them follows the same pattern. If we arrange them into a three-level outline format, it looks like this (with Peirce’s numbering of the ten sign types in parentheses): 1.. Qualisign (1) 2.. Sinsign 1.. Iconic (2) 2.. Indexical 1.. Rhematic (3) 2.. Dicent (4) 3.. Legisign 1.. Iconic (5) 2.. Indexical 1.. Rhematic (6) 2.. Dicent (7) 3.. Symbolic 1.. Rhematic (8) 2.. Dicent (Proposition) (9) 3.. Argument (10) A more purely iconic representation of this same structure occurs on EP2:162, in the context of the third Harvard lecture. Reading from left to right, the number of subdivisions increases with each trichotomy, giving us ten items at the bottom level. There are a couple of surprising (perhaps) features to notice here. First, in its original context, Peirce uses this diagram to show the relationship between subdivision and relative degeneracy in the category of Thirdness. How this relates to NDTR, which does not deal with degeneracy at all (or at least does not use that word), is an interesting question. The other surprising feature showed up when I began wondering what the outline of sign types would look like if you reversed the order, i.e. put the most complex trichotomy at the top level and the simplest at the bottom level of the outline. So we begin with the Sign whose Interpretant represents it as a sign of reason: 1.. Argument (10) 2.. Dicisign 1.. Symbolic (Proposition) (9) 2.. Indexical 1.. Legisign (7) 2.. Sinsign (4) 3.. Rheme 1.. Symbolic (8) (general term) 2.. Indexical 1.. Legisign (6) 2.. Sinsign (3) 3.. Iconic 1.. Legisign (5) 2.. Sinsign (2) 3.. Qualisign (1) The pattern of subdivision is the same as in the outline and the diagram above. (Is that surprising?) Taken together, the two outlines above show (somewhat more clearly than the familiar triangle diagram) why the ten sign types have to include 6 Legisigns and 6 Rhemes, 3 Sinsigns and 3 Indexes, and only one Qualisign and one Argument. But then this counts only the “normal” sign types and not the “peculiar” types which are “involved” in more complex signs or “replicate” them, etc. I’ll leave those for another day … Gary f. ----------------------------- 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 .
----------------------------- 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 .
