Edwina, Gary F, list, Edwina, you wrote: The ten classes, as triads, are on the other hand - embodied, while the 9 Relations are not embodied. Instead, they are three Relations (R-O, R-R, R-I) and function in each of the three categorical modes). The Sign, the full triad, on the other hand, is embodied, in both breadth and depth.
I'd suggest that the table of 10 classes does not itself offer embodied sgins, but that this is yet another analysis within semiotic grammar, differing from the list of 9 parameters in representing classes of signs which *may *be embodied in an actual semiosis, each such real semiosis being so complex (or involving so many complexities) that any attempt to completely analyze its putative 'elements' would necessarily be incomplete, not to mention, *de post facto*. And I think complexity exists even at the level of the analysis of each of the ten classes, so that to emphasize, as you do, the three Relations (R-O, R-R, R-I) separately, so to speak, seems to me to deemphasize what I think is a *quintessential* character of the Sign, as expressed in many of Peirce's definitions, namely that *the Interpretant stands in the same (not even 'similar', but "the same triadic relation") to the Object as the Representamen stands to its Object.* I do not see that your "three Relations" shows this. See, for example, this oft quoted defintion, no. 13, in Robert Marty's "76 Definitions of the Sign by C. S. Peirce" http://www.iupui.edu/~arisbe/rsources/76DEFS/76defs.HTM which begins: A sign, or Representamen, is a First which stands in such a genuine triadic relation to a Second, called its Object, as to be capable of determining a Third, called its Interpretant, to assume the same triadic relation to its Object in which it stand itself to the same Object. The triadic relation is genuine, that is its three members are bound together by it in a way that does not consist in any complexus of dyadic relations. That is the reason the Interpretant, or Third, cannot stand in a mere dyadic relation to the Object, but must stand in such a relation to it as the Representamen itself does. I think this additional factor is of the greatest importance, indeed cannot be over-emphasized. Thus, the 'three relations' are seen to be no "complexus of dyadic relations" but a single Sign *when embodied*, as you have always insisted. But note well that in def. 13 above, as in a number of other places, Peirce writes "A sign, or Representamen," as I see it, thus equating the 'sign itself' with the entire "genuine" triadic relation, which in an important sense it is, In other words, the three relations are one *in semiosis*. So, at the moment, I am thinking that both you and Gary are partially right and partially wrong. The triadic 'Sign' should not, in my opinion, be considered an instance of semiosis itself, but an *abstract *tricategorial analysis of it. 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 8, 2015 at 4:46 PM, Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> wrote: > Gary R - thanks for this clarification. I agree; the table of 9 are NOT > embodiments. > > I consider them the terms for the Relations; eg, in the letters to Lady > Welby, where he writes: > > "Now signs may be divided as to their own material nature, as to their > relations to their objects, and as to their relations to their > interpretants" (8.333). And > > "In respect to their relations to their dynamic objects, I divide signs > into Icons, Indices and Symbols" 8.335. [Gary F and I differ strongly on > certain aspects of this, as he considers the term 'sign' to refer to and > only to the Representamen, whereas i consider the term to refer to either > the Represenamen OR the full triad of relations]. > > And, "in regard to its relation to its signified Interperpretant, a sign > is either a Rheme, a Dicent or an Argument" 8.337. > > These are the two Relations that offer 'breadth' to the semiosic Sign (the > triad) - ie the R-O and the R-I. The Representamen relates to itself 'As it > is in itself" (8.224) and this, in my view, offers DEPTH, offering the > *generalized > history *of this Representamen in its other two Relations - that between > the R and the O, and that between the R and the I. > > The ten classes, as triads, are on the other hand - embodied, while the 9 > Relations are not embodied. Instead, they are three Relations (R-O, R-R, > R-I) and function in each of the three categorical modes). The Sign, the > full triad, on the other hand, is embodied, in both breadth and depth. > > Edwina > > ----- Original Message ----- > *From:* Gary Richmond <[email protected]> > *To:* Peirce-L <[email protected]> > *Sent:* Tuesday, December 08, 2015 4:26 PM > *Subject:* Re: [PEIRCE-L] signs, correlates, and triadic relations > > List, > > Although I don't see the point or relevance of Sung's (2) and (3), in my > opinion a great deal of semiotic confusion *has* been generated by > confusing and conflating (1) sign types with sign classes. No doubt Peirce > himself contributed to this confusion, although in *some *cases and *in > context* it seems quite logical (and Peirce offers legitimate reasons) to > refer to one of the classes by less than its full triadic name, for > example, 'Qualisign' to refer to the 1st of the 10 classes, the* rhematic > iconic qualisign. *But, again, even this sort of abbreviation has wreaked > a kind of semiotic havoc. (Btw, this is not the only way Peirce contributes > to this confusion.) > > Following a suggestion made by Ben Udell many years ago when I was writing > a paper which, in part, meant to distinguish between these sign types and > classes, I sometimes refer to sign 'types' as 'parameters' as being closer > to Peirce's meaning. > > This is also why I reject Sung's 'quark model' of semiotics, because the 9 > classes are *not* analogous to elementary particles in being 'thing-like' > and quasi-individual, but, again, are the *mere *parameters of the 10 > possible signs which *might *be embodied, that is, the 10 classes. > > There remain a number of scholars who still treat the table of 9 as if > they represented embodied sign classes. They simply do not. > > 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 Tue, Dec 8, 2015 at 3:39 PM, Sungchul Ji <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Clark, Jeff, Gary F, lists, >> >> You wrote: >> >> " . . . On the other hand, some semioticians say that all ten of the >> sign types defined in NDTR, (120815-1) >> including the Qualisign, are genuine Signs. This flags a possible >> ambiguity in the concepts of >> genuine and degenerate; . . . " >> >> (*1*) Shouldn't we distinguish between "sign types" and "sign >> classes"? Peirce defines >> >> (A) 9 sign types (analogous to quarks in particle physics) >> >> 1. qualisign, >> 2. sinsign, >> 3. legisign, >> 4. icon, >> 5. index, >> 6. symbol, >> 7. rheme, >> 8. dicisign, and >> 9. arguement) , and >> >> >> (B) 10 sign classes (analogous to baryons composed of 3 quarks) >> >> 1. rhematic iconic qualisign, >> 2. rhematic iconic sinsign, >> 3. rhematic iconic legisign, >> 4. rhematic indexical sinsign, >> 5. rhematic indexical legisign, >> 6. rhematic symbolic legisign, >> 7 decent indexical sinsign, >> 8. decent indexical legisign, >> 9. decent symbolic legisign >> 10. argument symbolic legisign. >> >> >> Not distinguishing between the 9 types of signs and the 10 classes of >> signs may be akin to physicists not distinguishing between quarks (u, d, c, >> s, t and b quarks) and baryons (protons and neutrons). >> >> (*2*) According to the quark model of the Peircean sign discussed in >> earlier posts, the 9 types of signs (referred to as the "elementary signs") >> cannot exist without being parts of the 10 classes of signs (referred to as >> the "composite signs"), just as quarks cannot exist outside of baryons. >> >> (*3*) What holds quarks together within a baryon (e.g., u, u and d >> quarks in a proton, or u, d and d quarks in a neutron) is the "strong >> force", so perhaps there exists a 'force' that holds three elementary signs >> together within a composite sign, and such a postulated 'force' in >> semiotics may be referred to as the "*semantic force*" or "*semiotic >> force*", in analogy to the "strong force". >> >> All the best. >> >> Sung >> >> >> >> >> >> On Tue, Dec 8, 2015 at 2:43 PM, Clark Goble <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> > On Dec 3, 2015, at 9:31 AM, [email protected] wrote: >>> > >>> > On the other hand, some semioticians say that all ten of the sign >>> types defined in NDTR, including the Qualisign, are genuine Signs. This >>> flags a possible ambiguity in the concepts of genuine and degenerate; and >>> possibly this problem is related to the concepts of embodiment, just >>> introduced, and of involvement, which is introduced in the next paragraph >>> >>> I think this gets at exactly the ambiguity that is confusing me in many >>> of these discussions of late. It’s also why I ask people to define their >>> terms since I think we’re often using Peirce’s terminology or terminology >>> that seems obvious but which obscure these subtle ambiguities. While I may >>> be wrong, my sense is that it’s precisely upon these subtle issues that our >>> various disagreements are located. >>> >>> All too often I find myself suspicious that we disagree in these more >>> fundamental considerations but unsure due to the way the discussions >>> proceed. >>> >>> I’ve been unable to read the list for about a week and am just catching >>> up. I see that the discussion of the above, or at least the terminology of >>> sign, continues. I just wanted to point out that in addition to these >>> subtle points it seems much of the debate is largely a semantic one over >>> the applicability of certain terms. It’s not clear to me yet that we have a >>> substantial difference in content. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ----------------------------- >>> 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 . >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> Sungchul Ji, Ph.D. >> >> Associate Professor of Pharmacology and Toxicology >> Department of Pharmacology and Toxicology >> Ernest Mario School of Pharmacy >> Rutgers University >> Piscataway, N.J. 08855 >> 732-445-4701 >> >> www.conformon.net >> >> >> ----------------------------- >> 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 .
