Gary F. list, As I just wrote in the other thread we've been dialoguing in, I don't really see at the moment any way to make headway in this matter of the vectors. The kind of example which Parmentier and I offer aren't convincing to you, while you counter with alternatives which I simply don't 'get' in the context of categorial vectors. So, it seems to me that when there seems to be no way forward, it is probably best to take a breather and see if either one of us can break through to the other's thinking, or can find some way to correct his own (or the other's) thinking.
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 Thu, Dec 31, 2015 at 8:42 AM, <[email protected]> wrote: > Gary R, > > Reverting to a post you made over a month ago … I had written something > about > > *genuine** triadic relations, such as are embodied in the processes > of representing and determining — which in my opinion are both genuine, > partly because they are mirror images of each other.* > > By that I meant that the process by which the Sign represents the Object > to the Interpretant is the same as the process by which the dynamic Object > determines the Sign to determine the Interpretant, but with the putative > ‘agencies’ trading places, so that the one process is regarded as the > reverse of the other. But as your explanation shows, what you mean be > “representation” is completely different. > > GR: I agree. For me this "mirror image" is at the very least reinforced > categorially. This was first pointed out to me by Mats Bergman (I believe > in his doctoral dissertation) in referring to a paper by R. > Palmentier "Signs' Place in Medias Res: Peirce's Concept of Semiotic > Mediation." Semiotic Mediation: Sociocultural and Psychological > Perspectives. Ed. Mertz, Elizabeth & Parmentier. 1985. and which mirror > image I first discussed in a paper on Peirce's trichotomic theory,"Outline > of trikonic: Diagrammatic Trichotomic" in Section 5 on trichotomic vectors > (i.e., possible paths through the three categories, probably several > vectors occuring together in any actual semiosis). > > http://www.iupui.edu/~arisbe/menu/library/aboutcsp/richmond/trikonic.htm > > So, while all would agree that, for Peirce, when there is semiosis that > the object (2ns) *determines* the sign (1ns) for the interpretant sign > (3ns), Parmentier objects to Peirce's not drawing sufficient attention to > its mirror, *representation*. So, for example (and using the *kind* of > example Parmentier's gives): An interpretant/interpreter (3ns) within a > particular art form, say a brilliant and creative playwright, say > Shakespeare, out the wealth of his imagination could create a great and > influential art work, a play, say Hamlet (1ns: the entire play being a > sign, the character Hamlet being a sign, every word, every punctuation > mark, etc. of the work being a sign), bringing into quasi-existence a *virtual > world* of imagined relations (2ns). In this sense, *determination*: > 2ns/1ns/3ns categorially mirrors *representation*: 3ns/1ns/2ns. > > GF: Not having read Parmentier, I’ve been reluctant to comment on this, > but I have to say that I can’t make sense of a scenario where the > “interpretant > creates a sign to represent an object.” The example you give identifies > the *interpretant* with an *interpreter*, which is deeply problematic to > me, and even granting that point, I don’t see how Shakespeare can be the > interpretant of the sign that is *Hamlet*; nor is it clear to me what the > object of that sign is. (Curiously enough, Hamlet himself seems to say that > the object of a play is human nature, when he says that the purpose of > playing is “to hold the mirror up to nature,” so that people (i.e. the > audience) *see themselves* in it; but in that case, their > self-recognition is the interpretant, and the *reversal* that you and I > both metaphorize as mirror-imaging is not implied at all!) > > GR: While I perhaps see Parmentier's point as regards the neglect by > Peirce of this categorial vector in art, I do not see that Peirce neglected > it in his primary focus, namely, science. Thus, to offer a very different > example: An interpretan/interpreter (3ns) within a particular field of > science, say a brilliant and creative theoretical physicist, say Einstein, > out of the tremendous storehouse of his scientific and mathematical > knowledge and creativity could hypothesize a great and influential theory, > say, the general theory of relativity (1ns: the entire theory being a sign, > every mathematical symbol, etc. being a sign), bringing into our scientific > understanding a *model *of the large-scale structure of our 'actual' > universe (2ns). [I've added a *very* brief note on trichotomic vector > analysis at '*' below my signature.] > > GF: In that case I’d say it’s the mathematical model that is doing the > representing (of the physical universe) to the physicist, and the > interpretant would be the next step in the inquiry. But Einstein would say > (in fact does say, in *Turning Signs* Chapter 9) that the physical > universe does *not* fully determine the model which the equations of the > physicist represent; so in that case representation and determination would > not mirror one another. > > Now I don't know whether you had this categorial mirroring in mind when > you wrote what I just quoted above, Gary. In any case, I have given this > post a new subject heading in the interest of emphasing the "mirror image" > of 'determination' and 'representation'. > > I hope that this thread will clarify your vector analysis, which I’ve been > hoping for years to understand better than I do (as it’s probably obvious > from the above that I don’t really get it.) I guess what I’m looking for is > a more exact *definition *of the six vectors, along the lines of Peirce’s > definitions in NDTR of the nine “parameters” as you call them. Then we need > to look at examples of their application and consider the ‘fit’ between > definition and example. I’ll do my best to ask the right questions about > both. Maybe this will also help with the problem of naming the vectors, > which you mention in the appended note. > > Gary f. > > * [In my understanding, *this *"mirror" represents but two of six > possible vectors (again, paths through the categories) Note: in my paper > mentioned above, I first called the 'vector of 'involution', mentioned > above, the 'vector of analysis', but I now call it the path or order or > 'vector of involution' as closer to Peirce's meaning and usage. The other 5 > names have stayed the same: determination (i.e., semiotic determination), > process (which, btw, includes evolution and inquiry), representation, > aspiration (of the individual or community), order (shorthand for Hegelian > or dialectical order), and, of course, the 6th just mentioned, involution ( > again, the analysis of *categorial* involution commencing at 3ns). For > more on categorial vectors, see my paper linked to above. > > > > > ----------------------------- > 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 .
