Helmut - my point is that if one just substitutes one 'name/term'
for another - that is an irrelevant exercise.
Well, perhaps it might be relevant in a game show or crossword
puzzle - but semiosis isn't about such things. Semiosis has a
function - to actually objectively examine and rationally explain the
real world. The function of semiosis is, in my view, to take its
premises and models and see how they explain the operations of the
real world.
So- you can take an experience[s] and it's best not to use Peirce's
examples but one's own experiences - and try to see what is,
semiosically [ie, morphologically and cognitively] actually
happening. I don't see that a focus on terms gets one very far with
such a task.
Edwina
On Tue 12/05/20 2:59 PM , "Helmut Raulien" [email protected] sent:
Edwina, That is right, I have just used what I have learnt from
this list (thank you), like valency or categorial order /
determination order/ involution order, or thought to have learnt, to
combine it, and now I just have checked this way of combining it by
the list of the ten classes- see below- I have copied from Wikipedia,
in one example case, so it just is the first element of an induction,
not an explanation. Best, Helmut
Peirce's Ten Classes of Sign (CP 2.254-263, EP 2:294-296, from MS
540 of 1903)
Sign classed
by own
phenome-
nological
category
Relative
to
object
Relative
to
interpretant
Specificational redundancies
in parentheses
Some examples
(I)
Qualisign
Icon
Rheme
(Rhematic Iconic) Qualisign
A feeling of "red"
(II)
Sinsign
Icon
Rheme
(Rhematic) Iconic Sinsign
An individual diagram
(III)
Index
Rheme
Rhematic Indexical Sinsign
A spontaneous cry
(IV)
Dicisign
Dicent (Indexical) Sinsign
A weathercock or photograph
(V)
Legisign
Icon
Rheme
(Rhematic) Iconic Legisign
A diagram, apart from its factual individuality
(VI)
Index
Rheme
Rhematic Indexical Legisign
A demonstrative pronoun
(VII)
Dicisign
Dicent Indexical Legisign
A street cry (identifying the individual by tone, theme)
(VIII)
Symbol
Rheme
Rhematic Symbol (–ic Legisign)
A common noun
(IX)
Dicisign
Dicent Symbol (–ic Legisign)
A proposition (in the conventional sense)
(X)
Argument
Argument (–ative Symbolic Legisign)
A syllogism
12. Mai 2020 um 20:24 Uhr
"Edwina Taborsky"
wrote:
Helmut - What I feel that you did - is just give a 'name' to another
'name'.
So- you said that a 'street cry' can also be termed a 'dicent
indexical legisign'. Two terms, two names. But this doesn't examine
how it helps us understand the nature of that street cry by giving it
that 'other name'.
The same with the other terms; you haven't explained how these terms
define the nature of 'what, semiosically, is a street cry.
Edwina
On Tue 12/05/20 2:04 PM , "Helmut Raulien" [email protected] sent:
Edwina, List, yes, I will think of some examples. Before I know,
whether what I wrote is correct, I give the example about the
dicentic indexical legisign and its involutional and determinational
consequences according to Peirce´s examples: A dicentic indexical
legisign is for instance "A street cry (identifying the individual by
tone, theme)". It involves a dicentic indexical sinsign, for instance
"a weathercock, photograph". Both identify something, the wind
direction, or the depicted things. so check, identification is
involved. Involution is a necessitant. The object (index) may,
apart from the said dicentic indexical sinsign, also determine a
rhematic indexical sinsign, for instance a "spontaneous cry".
Determination is a possibility. If the "street cry" happens in a
quiet street, it will be assigned for a spontaneous cry. But if it
happens in a carnival-situation, where everybody is yelling, its
cry-property will not be detected, but only the said identificational
property, determination possibility not carried out. But if it
happens in a quiet street, and is taken for a cry, so, if the
determination towards a rhematical indexical sinsign takes place,
then the latter involves a rhematic iconic qualisign, for instance "a
feeling of red". In this case, as it is a cry, it is a feeling of
alert. Does it fit, or did I make it fit? Best, Helmut
12. Mai 2020 um 17:17 Uhr
"Edwina Taborsky"
wrote:
Helmut - I think it would be helpful to provide a real life example!
That is - semiosis has to move beyond words and yes, beyond the
delights of tables and formulae - and into the real world. How do
these 'signs' actually function in the real world?
Edwina
On Tue 12/05/20 11:09 AM , "Helmut Raulien" [email protected] sent:
Jon, List, Thank you! I have drawn (see attachment) three tables
about three trichotomies/ ten classes. One is the known signs table
(valency), the others are about determination and involution. What to
do with them? My idea is for example (only pay attention, if it is
not all false): (: You can look at the valency table, and choose a
dicentic indexical legisign. Then you can see, which else signs this
object (index) may determine in the determination table:
index-sinsign-dicent, index-sinsign-rheme, and index-qualisign-rheme.
The latter does not exist in the valency table. So there may be
determined (is determination a possibility?) except from the original
sign (dicentic indexical legisign) also a rhematic indexical sinsign,
and a dicentic indexical sinsign. In fact you don´t need the
determination table for this: You just can look in the valency table,
which signs pass the index. In the involution table, you can look
up, which signs are involved in the original sign:
Dicent-index-sinsign, dicent-index-qualisign, dicent-icon-qualisign.
But of these combinations, in the valency table only the dicentic
indexical sinsign exists, so only this is involved. In fact, for this
too, you donot need the involution table. You just go straight to the
left from the dicent in the valency table. Next you can look which
signs are involved by the possibly determined other signs: Go in the
valency table to the left from the rheme: Rhematic iconical
qualisign. And from the dicent: Dicentic indexical sinsign, which we
already have. So, with the valency table you can look, which signs
a sign involves, which other signs may be determined by the object,
and which signs they would involve. The determination and involution
tables are not necessary therefor, they merely are for explanation.
I have assumed, that involution is a triadic relation. If not, so if
also the object alone involves, then all mentioned signs (rhematic
iconical qualisign too) are involved not possibly, but necessarily.
Best, Helmut 12. Mai 2020 um 03:20 Uhr
"Jon Alan Schmidt"
wrote: Helmut, List: I am not sure that "mode of composition" is
the right way to characterize the basis of the arrangement below (EP
2:482-483, 1908), but what I notice now is that it conforms to Gary
R.\'s [1] vector of order (1ns→2ns→3ns) at all three
levels--first the correlate itself (S=1, O=2, I=3), then the nature
of its relation to the sign (immediate/possible=1,
dynamical//actual=2, final/necessary=3), and then the valency of that
relation (monadic=1, dyadic=2, triadic=3). 1.1.1 - Mode of
Apprehension of the Sign 2.1.1 - Mode of Presentation of the
Immediate Object 2.2.1 - Mode of Being of the Dynamical Object
2.2.2 - Dyadic Relation of the Dynamical Object and Sign 3.1.1 -
Mode of Presentation of the Immediate Interpretant 3.2.1 - Mode of
Being of the Dynamical Interpretant 3.2.2 - Dyadic Relation of the
Sign and Dynamical Interpretant 3.3.1 - Purpose of the Final
Interpretant 3.3.2 - Dyadic Relation of the Sign and Final
Interpretant 3.3.3 - Triadic Relation of the Dynamical Object,
Sign, and Final Interpretant
By contrast, my proposed logical order for sign classification
conforms to different vectors at the different levels--first
determination (2ns→1ns→3ns) for the correlates, then order
(1ns→2ns→3ns) for the valencies, and then analysis or
involution (3ns→2ns→1ns) for the relations. The only deviation
from this scheme is the placement of Od-S, which reflects the
principle that a division for a relation must come after all
divisions for the correlates that it involves/presupposes.
2.2.1 - Mode of Being of the Dynamical Object 2.1.1 - Mode of
Presentation of the Immediate Object 1.1.1 - Mode of
Apprehension of the Sign 2.2.2 - Dyadic Relation of the Dynamical
Object and Sign 3.3.1 - Purpose of the Final Interpretant
3.2.1 - Mode of Being of the Dynamical Interpretant 3.1.1 - Mode
of Presentation of the Immediate Interpretant 3.3.2 - Dyadic
Relation of the Sign and Final Interpretant 3.2.2 - Dyadic
Relation of the Sign and Dynamical Interpretant 3.3.3 - Triadic
Relation of the Dynamical Object, Sign, and Final Interpretant
However, I wish to reiterate that my own evolving speculative grammar
does not apply the rule of determination to the ten trichotomies in
this sequence to obtain 66 classes of signs. I am still tinkering
with the details, but right now it makes more sense to me to begin
with 3.3.2 as term/proposition/argument and then apply different
trichotomies in different ways to each of these three basic classes.
For example, an indexical term such as a line of identity in
existential graphs (indefinite), a spontaneous cry (singular), or a
demonstrative pronoun (general) is always a concretive designative,
requiring present collateral observation to identify the individual
thing that it denotes. On the other hand, a symbolic term such as
"beauty" (monadic), "killing" (dyadic), or "giving" (triadic)--i.e.,
the label for a spot in existential graphs--is always an abstractive
descriptive, requiring past collateral experience to identify the
quality or relation that it denotes. Regards, Jon Alan
Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Professional Engineer, Amateur
Philosopher, Lutheran Layman www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt [2] -
twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt [3] On Sun, May 10, 2020 at 11:35
AM Helmut Raulien wrote: Correction: "mode of determination
like in "O-S-I". List, as the basis for Peitce´s 66 sign classes
are these trichotomies: 1st, According to the Mode of Apprehension
of the Sign itself, 2nd, According to the Mode of Presentation of the
Immediate Object, 3rd, According to the Mode of Being of the Dynamical
Object, 4th, According to the Relation of the Sign to its Dynamical
Object, 5th, According to the Mode of Presentation of the Immediate
Interpretant, 6th, According to the Mode of Being of the Dynamical
Interpretant, 7th, According to the Relation of the Sign to the
Dynamical Interpretant, 8th, According to the Nature of the Normal
Interpretant, 9th, According to the Relation of the Sign to the
Normal Interpretant, 10th, According to the Triadic Relation of the
Sign to its Dynamical Object and to its Normal Interpretant. (L463:
134, 150, EP2: 482-483) ,and Priscilla Borges´ order is different,
it starts with the dynamical object. my assumption is, that Peirce´s
sequence works due to the mode of composition, and Priscilla Borges´
sequence works due to the mode of determination. Is that correct?
With "due to the mode of composition" I mean the categorial sequence
1-2-3, like, with three trichotomies "S-O-I", and with "due to the
mode of determination" I mean the order in which one element
determines the other, like in "D-S-O". If "mode of composition" is
not the best term, what would you (anyone) call it? Best, Helmut
----------------------------- 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 [4] .
----------------------------- 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 [5] .
Links:
------
[1]
https://arisbe.sitehost.iu.edu/menu/library/aboutcsp/richmond/trikonic.htm
[2] http://www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt
[3] http://twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
[4] http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm
[5] 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 .
