After writing the post below, I skimmed through the posts that have appeared in this thread since yesterday afternoon, and it seems that many of them have wandered pretty far off from the topic indicated by the subject line above. I think it would be better to change the subject line when that happens. Now, back to Gary R’s post and diagram:
Gary R (and list), Your diagram certainly brings out the trilateral symmetry of the ten sign types it depicts. Before I can apply it to observations of semiotic phenomena, though, I need some further explanation of the differences between your descriptions and Peirce’s. So I thought I’d better look at those differences systematically. 1. GR: 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. CSP (CP 2.242): A Representamen is the First Correlate of a triadic relation, the Second Correlate being termed its Object, and the possible Third Correlate being termed its Interpretant … GF: Your use of the term “correlate” differs from Peirce’s, which I think is a terminological mistake if the ten sign types you depict in your diagram are intended to be the same ten sign types depicted and defined by Peirce. For Peirce, the Correlates correspond to the positions in each arrowed triangle within your diagram; for you, the correlates are represented by the numbers placed in each position. As an alternative name for what the numbers in your diagram represent, maybe “categoriality” might suffice, as the possibilities are first, second and third, which appear to be instances of Firstness, Secondness and Thirdness (terms that Peirce does not use in NDTR). 2. In each of your ten triads, following the bent arrow means reading involutionally from the interpretant, through the object, to the sign itself. Does this mean that the Interpretant involves the Object, which in turn involves the Sign? That doesn’t make much sense to me, but if that’s not what “reading involutionally” means, I find it hard to say what it does mean. 3. Suppose we assume that your diagram represents the ten sign types generated by Peirce’s three trichotomies. 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.” If your diagram represents those three trichotomies, then applying them to one of your arrowed triads, say the one at the center of your diagram, would be read as follows: Sign type #6 is a legisign because it is a general law (the categoriality of its upper vertex is 3). It is an index because the relation of the sign to its object consists in some existential relation to that object (the categoriality of its lower vertex is 2). It is a rheme because its Interpretant represents it as a sign of possibility (the categoriality of the vertex to the right is 1). In your terminology, this is equivalent to saying that the legisign is a third, the index a second, and the rheme a first. Correct? For you, qualisign, icon and rheme are all firsts; sinsign, index and dicisign are all seconds; and legisign, symbol and argument are all thirds. Correct? This is where your departure from Peirce’s usage of the term “correlate” becomes confusing. If we follow Peirce’s usage but combine it with yours, we are forced to say that the First Correlate of a semiotic triadic relation (the Sign or Representamen) can be a first, a second or a third (i.e. qualisign, sinsign or legisign). Peirce avoids this confusion of firstnesses, if I may call it that, by saying in CP 2.235 that in any triadic relation, the First Correlate is that one of the three which is regarded as of the simplest nature, being a mere possibility if any one of the three is of that nature, and not being a law unless all three are of that nature. He uses the words “possibility,” “fact” and “law” instead of your first, second and third. For me, all this becomes problematic for translating the meaning of your “bent arrows” into words. In the case of your central sign type, for instance, what does it mean to “follow the order of involution” from rheme (1) to index (2) to legisign (3)? I think if I could understand exactly what you are diagramming here, i.e. locate it in my collateral experience of semiosis, I could probably understand your trikonic analysis much better than I do now. 4. This brings us to another ambiguity which for me is more troublesome. Going back to the center of your diagram again, the 2 at the bottom vertex could be read as saying that the Object of this sign type is a second. But what it should mean, if it reflects Peirce’s method of trichotomizing, is that the relation of the sign to its object consists in some existential relation to that object — i.e. that dyadic relation (and not the Object) is a second (in your terms), or a “fact” (in Peirce’s). Likewise, the 1 at the right-hand vertex could be read as saying that the Interpretant is a first (or is ‘in the mode of being of Firstness,’ as Edwina likes to say). But what it should mean is that the Sign’s Interpretant represents it as a sign of possibility (and not as a sign of fact or reason). That reading (unlike the other one) is consistent with Peirce’s definition of this sign type (CP 2. 259): “A Rhematic Indexical Legisign is any general type or law, however established, which requires each instance of it to be really affected by its Object in such a manner as merely to draw attention to that Object. Each Replica of it will be a Rhematic Indexical Sinsign of a peculiar kind. The Interpretant of a Rhematic Indexical Legisign represents it as an Iconic Legisign; and so it is, in a measure—but in a very small measure.” More generally, we should not overlook the fact that for Peirce, the Replica of a Sign is a Sign of a different type, and a “peculiar” kind of that type; and that its Interpretant also represents it as a Sign of yet another type — and in so doing, also misrepresents it in a large measure. In short, as I pointed out the other day, Peirce’s first trichotomy (qualisign/sinsign/legisign) is based on the monadic ‘mode of being’ of the sign, but his second trichotomy (icon/index/symbol) is not: that second trichotomy is based on the dyadic relation between Sign and Object. The third trichotomy (rheme/dicisign/argument), on yet another hand, classifies neither monadic modes of being nor dyadic S-O relations, but names three kinds of triadic relation according to the Interpretant’s representation of the Sign (as a sign of possibility or as a sign of fact or a sign of reason). When you reduce all three of these trichotomies to 1/2/3, or first/second/third, this difference in complexity between the trichotomies becomes invisible. I don’t think that what I’ve called an “ambiguity” in your diagram can be resolved by changing it in any way; rather I think that some kind of ambiguity is intrinsic to any flat diagram of the sign types. That’s why I think we need a series of diagrams to represent the ten sign types in all their dimensionality. Perhaps what we need is a good animator! But I think I’d better stop here, at least for today, awaiting your response. I think we are making progress, albeit slowly. Gary f. From: Gary Richmond [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 30-Nov-15 15:57 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
----------------------------- 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 .
