Gary R, you wrote: Although I've clearly stated that I agree with you, Bellucci, and Stjernfel, that the dicisign is perhaps of particular importance in semiosis, I think that valorizing it by claiming that it is the only sign class that has an immediate object needs to be proved. You suggest that it has been so proved by Bellucci in his book.
What I’ve said, more than once, is that Bellucci’s book follows the development of Peirce’s speculative grammar in chronological order, with very generous quotations from his manuscripts along the way and very astute commentary on them; and that part of his Chapter 8 deals with the emergence of the “immediate object” in that context. The question In that section “is the question of what on earth the immediate object of a sign is” (Bellucci p. 291). The book is not a polemic and does not try to “prove” that the dicisign is the only sign class that has an immediate object. If you pay close attention to what Peirce wrote about the immediate object in 1904-8, setting aside any prejudices you may have about what the immediate object of a sign is, you will see that there is no need to “prove” or disprove any such thing. But if you read Bellucci polemically, as if he were taking one side in the debate that you and Jon seem to be engulfed in, then you will surely miss his point (and Peirce’s), just as you’ve missed the point of my posts over the past few days. My attempts to clear up misunderstandings having only led to more misunderstandings, I think it’s time for me to drop them and get back to reading Peirce, as I still have many open questions to ponder about what he was trying to do in 1903-08. My apologies for wasting your time in this thread. Gary F. From: Gary Richmond <gary.richm...@gmail.com> Sent: 24-Jun-18 19:09 Gary F, list, GF: The point about a rheme is that it is not interpreted as being really affected by its object, but only “understood as representing such and such a kind of possible Object.” Give it an actual object by making it a part of a dicisign, and it will afford the depth component of the information conveyed by that dicisign. But in the absence of some part of the sign indicating what that information is about, it can’t be interpreted as informational. Again, as I just wrote in response to Edwina, information about an Object "emerges"--it is not given completely even when, as you seem to be suggesting, a rheme is made part of a dicisign. Hardly. Perhaps it is even then quite unclear as to the information the rheme or, for that matter, the proposition, holds, and it may take the stringing of any number of propositions into arguments to get at the significant information. Although I've clearly stated that I agree with you, Bellucci, and Stjernfel, that the dicisign is perhaps of particular importance in semiosis, I think that valorizing it by claiming that it is the only sign class that has an immediate object needs to be proved. You suggest that it has been so proved by Bellucci in his book. I am not yet so convinced. …
----------------------------- 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 .
