Helmut, List: Unfortunately only the "valency" table is correct and relevant, since the second and third trichotomies of Peirce's 1903 taxonomy are not for the (dynamical) object and (final) interpretant as *correlates *(2.2.1 and 3.3.1), but rather for their dyadic *relations *with the sign (2.2.2 and 3.3.2). Hence the logical order of determination is S → Od-S → S-If, which we use to obtain the familiar ten classes of signs.
Note that this has nothing whatsoever to do with which classes of signs can be *determined *(in a different sense) by other signs. In fact, only a symbolic sign can determine a further sign as its dynamical interpretant. An indexical sign can only produce an exertion or a feeling, and an iconic sign can only produce a feeling. It also has nothing whatsoever to do with which classes of signs are *involved *in other signs. Every *actual *replica of a legisign is a sinsign that possesses qualisigns. Every symbolic sign involves indexical and iconic signs, and every indexical sign involves iconic signs. Every argument involves dicisigns and rhemes, and every dicisign involves rhemes. Peirce indeed classifies a street cry as a dicent indexical *legisign*. The dicent indexical *sinsign *that is its replica is the *actual *street cry that someone utters on a particular occasion. It in turn involves *rhematic* indexical sinsigns that are replicas of rhematic indexical legisigns, as well as *iconic *sinsigns that are replicas of iconic legisigns. It also embodies qualisigns such as the volume, tone, and inflection of the utterer's voice. As a dicisign, the street cry's final interpretant is a habit of conduct--buying whatever the utterer is selling. As an indexical sinsign, the individual replica's dynamical interpretant is typically an exertion--drawing someone's attention. In some cases, this results in the further exertion of making a purchase, but in others it merely produces a feeling--such as annoyance in someone who is not interested. Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 1:04 PM Helmut Raulien <[email protected]> wrote: > 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" <[email protected]> > 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 > >
----------------------------- 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 .
