Edwina, List, I must admit that as I wrote of that central sign class that I thought of you and C.W. Spinks, that is, of his book, *Peirce and Triadomania: A Walk in the Semiotic Wilderness*, which you once pointed me to (thanks for that).
I'll want to reflect more on your perspective in this matter, as I too am quite intrigued by that singular class, (6) = rhematic indexical legisign. 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 Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 4:18 PM, Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 <[email protected]> > *To:* Peirce-L <[email protected]> > *Cc:* Benjamin Udell <[email protected]> > *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. > > [image: Inline image 1] > > 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 s*ymbolic 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 > > [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 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 .
