Gary F., List,
For now just a very few interleaved comments. I think I'll have rather
spent what energy I have for contributing to this thread in this post, at
least at this time (I'm in the midst of some health challenges, so that by
the end of this week I'll have seen two physicians and had two separate
days of clinical testing). My focus should probably be on the other thread
on 'mirroring', and it may be that these terminological issues are, in
part, a consequence of my not really focusing on NDTR
You prefaced your post by writing:
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.
I agree. I from time to time recommend this on the list as list moderator,
then forget to do it myself! Now to your post itself.
You wrote:
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).
I would agree with you that my meaning is 'categoriality' and would say
that I merely 'assume' the correlates as Peirce uses them ("the Correlates
correspond to the *positions *in each arrowed triangle within your diagram")
in my categorial analysis. Or, to put this another way, I meant that at
each correlative position there is *this *categoriality. My intentions
being what they may be, your terminological point is well taken, and I will
take your suggestion to heart and no longer speak of correlates in
consideration of this diagram.
However, as I wrote earlier, a diagram of the 10 classes which would
include *all *the concepts and principles we;re talking about would be
rather very complex--too complex, I think in two dimensions (as you
yourself say later in your post). In addition, while your focus is on NDTR,
I must admit that mine is not, and the Peirce I find myself referring most
often just now is "The Logic of Matematics." So, perhaps we're at odds in
our focus as well.
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.
If one considers the intepretant to be a thirdness, the object a
secondness, and the sign itself a firstness, then, yes, reading
involutionally does mean commencing at 3ns, moving though 2ns, arriving a
1ns. The very language that Peirce uses to describe each class also follows
that involutional pattern, so, for example rhematic iconic qualisign. I
really don't see what's problematic about this. But, again, I'm currently
more concerned now with the principles of "The Logic of Mathematics," while
my use of correlate was incorrect in the context of my using it.
3. [. . .] 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 esecond or a
third *(i.e.
qualisign, sinsign or legisign).
Yes, yes, and I agree that the term 'correlate' as I used it in my earlier
post is not only confusing but wrong. I stand corrected in this, and will
now assume your suggested expression,' *categoriality*'. My diagram means
only to replicate in triangular form that of Peirce at 2.264 to faciliate
observing the, as I see, considerable tricategoriality which pervades it
(wholly expected as I see it). And this when looking at it from either a,
shall we say, macro- or micro- perspective.
GF: 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*.
The CP editors footnote at 2.240 seems to me at odds with Peirce's own
intentions--I think it's outright incorrect. But it does points to how
complex and confusing this matter of correlates in relation to
categoriality in consideration of, in our case, the 10 classes has been
from the get go. Let's hope that we eventually sort it out.
4. . . . 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.”
I really think we must be talking past each other (or maybe it's our
difference in focus) here since I read this passage differently from you.
Let's look at Peirce's example of a rhematic indexical legisign, a
demonstrative pronoun, let's say 'that'. First one should remember that a
demonstrative pronound replaces a noun, that is, something more specific
and within a specific context. It points to the object to which it refers,
but without conveying any depth or further sense regarding it. So, as Liska
notes, since its replica is rhematic indexical sinsign "of a peculiar
kind," "there can be no pure cases of such signs" (A General Introduction,
etc., 51). Granted, it's interpretant represents it as an iconic legisign,
"but in very small measure."
Its replica, a rhematic iconic sinsign ("a spontaneous cry" to give
Peirce's paradigmatic example) represents, shall we say, not quite "a law
unto itself" (a legisign, "but in very small measure'). It merely directs
our attention to 'that' particular object which has elicited it. That is
all. The replica, being a rhematic indexical sinsign "of a peculiar
kind,"necessarily involves an Iconic Sinsign of a peculiar kind, yet is
quite different since it brings the attention of the Interpreter to the
very Object denoted." CP 2.256. And 'that' is that! Except, to add what you
have already written about replicas, namely, that being a sign of another
type that they also in a way that should not be ignored, misrepresent the
sign type that they are instancing.
GF: 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.
I think that some of the "ambiguity" in this case is by my using proper
terminology rather than assuming you'll know, of course, what I mean. Ha! I
agree that we will need a series of diagrams "to represent the ten sign
types in all their dimensionality. I think our "good animator" will
probably need to use holograms and other 3D devices to create that
representation, however.
I hope we are making progress. I know I am, at least in consideration of
the terminological error I made in my earlier post, one which you have not
only found, but for which you even supplied a terminological correction. So
thanks!
SInce I will be dropping out of this particular thread for at least a week
or so, even though I'd be quite interested in your response, certainly do
not feel under any obligation to do so.
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 Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 12:49 PM, <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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.
>
>
>
> [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
>
>
>
>
> -----------------------------
> 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 .
