Gary R, lists,
You wrote: "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 (121115-1) 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." I agree that <the 9 types are not analogous to elementary particles in being 'thing-like'>. No one on this list would conflate "signs" and "particles" in this manner, since that would be akin to conflating *semiotics* and *physics*. But what I did say was that these 9 types are "analogous to quarks in being subject to a hypothetical force or obeying the principle of gauge invariance". Both these concepts, "force" and "gauge invariance", can be applied *analogically *and *qualitatively *outside physics*, *for example, to Romeo and Juliet, although they are not protons and electrons. All the best. Sung On Tue, Dec 8, 2015 at 4:26 PM, Gary Richmond <gary.richm...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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 <s...@rci.rutgers.edu> 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 <cl...@lextek.com> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> > On Dec 3, 2015, at 9:31 AM, g...@gnusystems.ca 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 >>> peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to >>> PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu 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 >> peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L >> but to l...@list.iupui.edu 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 > peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L > but to l...@list.iupui.edu 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 peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
