[peirce-l] Re: Sinsign, Legisign, Qualisign

[Benjamin Udell]

Various corrections. Sorry about that.   Also, anybody replying, please remember to delete all unneeded graphics and text. - Ben -------------------   Gary R., Robert, Bernard, Wilfred, Claudio, List,   I thought I'd try to the branching style chart of Peirce's ten-adic division of sign parameters. (These parameters are not mutually independent). I supposed that the same formal relations applied as with the main three trichotomies of parameters (qualisign/sinsign/legisign, icon/index/symbol, and rheme/dicisign/argument).   As you can see, it gets complicated and long, and I ended up omitting divisions V through IX.     Then I did a complete table of the "branching" variety but I did it without repeating such terms as "assurance of instinct" 55 times.   My basic question here is whether these structural relations are correct or whether the ordering of the trichotomies "I, II, III, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII, IX, X" is correct. If the same rules hold for these 10 trichotomies as for the three, then it would appear, for instance, that all symbols are copulants. Copulants "neither describe nor denote their Objects, but merely express logical relations"; for example "If--then--"; "--causes--." That seems like it just must be wrong. Then a symbol like the word "red" couldn't be a symbol, instead, since it's descriptive, it can be a legisign, a sinsign, or a qualisign, but in any case it has to be a descriptive abstractive iconic hypothetical sympathetic suggestive gratific rhematic assurance of instinct. That just can't be right.   After this big table, I append (for those who wish to review these 10 trichotomies) a table of the 10 trichotomical divisions of sign parameters, pretty much using a table which I found in "Problems With Peirce" http://jameselkins.com/Texts/Peirce.pdf , which is an excerpt from _Visual Culture: A Skeptical Reader_ (work in progress) by James Elkins. (The nice thing about his table is (a) it includes quotes from Peirce & (b) it's on the Internet.)   The funny thing is, I once produced a 10-ad of the sign parameter trichotomies for Gary Richmond, and he had most of that info included in it, but I forgot about it because, at the time, I simply thought of it vaguely as "advanced" classifications and I hadn't mentally connected the "parameters" with it.   Best, Ben Udell. I. The sign in itself II. The nature of the immediate object III. The nature of the dynamic object IV. The relation of the sign to the dynamic object V. The nature of the immediate interpretant VI. The nature of the dynamic interpretant VII. The relation of the sign to the dynamic interpretant VIII. The nature of the normal interpretant “the Purpose of the Eventual Interpretant” IX. The relation of the sign to the normal interpretant X. The triadic relation of the sign to its dynamic object and its normal interpretant qualisign descriptive abstractive iconic hypothetical sympathetic suggestive gratific rhematic assurance of instinct sinsign < designative < concretive < indexical < categorical < percussive < imperative < to produce action < dicent < assurance of experience / /   legisign-- \   \ descriptive abstractive iconic hypothetical sympathetic suggestive gratific rhematic assurance of instinct designative < concretive < indexical < categorical < percussive < imperative < to produce action < dicent < assurance of experience / copulant-- \ abstractive iconic hypothetical sympathetic suggestive gratific rhematic assurance of instinct concretive < indexical < categorical < percussive < imperative < to produce action < dicent < assurance of experience / collective-- \ iconic hypothetical sympathetic suggestive gratific rhematic assurance of instinct indexical < categorical < percussive < imperative < to produce action < dicent < assurance of experience / symbolic-- \ hypothetical sympathetic suggestive gratific rhematic assurance of instinct categorical < percussive < imperative < to produce action < dicent < assurance of experience / relative-- \ sympathetic suggestive gratific rhematic assurance of instinct percussive < imperative < to produce action < dicent < assurance of experience / usual-- \ suggestive gratific rhematic assurance of instinct imperative < to produce action < dicent < assurance of experience / indicative-- \ gratific rhematic assurance of instinct to produce action < dicent < assurance of experience / to produce self-control-- \ rhematic assurance of instinct dicent < assurance of experience / argumental - \ assurance of instinct assurance of experience assurance of form   Table using material as gathered in "Problems With Peirce" http://jameselkins.com/Texts/Peirce.pdf , which is an excerpt from _Visual Culture: A Skeptical Reader_ (work in progress) by James Elkins. I. The sign itself "the Mode of Apprehension of the signnitself"; "different ways in which objects are present to minds" 1. (Potisigns) Qualisigns (tone, mark) Signs "in themselves as they are in themselves"; as "feelings"; for example, "At the first instant of waking from profound sleep" 2. (Actisigns) Sinsigns (token, replica) "the sense of something opposing one’s Effort, something preventing one from opening a door slightly ajar"; "Signs as Experienced his et nunc; such as any single word in a single place in a single sentence of a single page of a single copy of a book." 3. (Famisigns) Legisigns (type) "that which is stored away in one’s Memory; Familiar, and as such, General" II. The nature of the immediate object "the Mode of Presentation of the Immediate Object"; "as objects may be presented" 1. Descriptives, "such as a geometrical surface, or an absolutely definite or distinct notion" 2. Designatives (Denotatives, Indicatives, Denominatives) "like a Demonstrative pronoun, or a pointing finger, brutely direct the mental eyeballs of the interpreter to the object" without "independent reasoning" 3. Copulants "neither describe nor denote their Objects, but merely express logical relations"; for example "If--then--"; "--causes--." III. The nature of the dynamic object "the Mode of Being of the Dynamical Object" 1. Abstractive "such as Color, Mass, Whiteness" 2. Concretive "such as Man, Charlemagne" 3. Collective "such as Mankind, the Human Race" IV. The relation of the sign to the dynamic object 1. Icon (Likeness) 2. Index 3. Symbol (General Sign) V. The nature of the immediate interpretant 1. Hypothetical "the Mode of Presentation of the Immediate Interpretant"; "the Nature of the Immediate Interpretant" 2. Categorical (Imperative) 3. Relative VI. The nature of the dynamic interpretant 1. Sympathetic (Congruentive) "the Mode of Being of the Dynamical Interpretant"; "the Nature of the Dynamic Interpretant" 2. Percussive (Shocking) 3. Usual VII. The relation of the sign to the dynamic interpretant “the Manner of Appeal to the Dynamic Interpretant”; the “nature of the Immediate (or Felt?) Interpretant” 1. Suggestive (Ejaculative) “Merely giving utterance to feeling” 2. Imperative “Including, of course, Interrogatives” 3. Indicative VIII. The nature of the normal interpretant “the Purpose of the Eventual Interpretant” 1. Gratific 2. To produce action 3. To produce self-control IX. The relation of the sign to the normal interpretant  “the Nature of the Influence of the Sign” 1. Rheme (Seme, Term, Sumisign) “like a simple sign” 2. Dicisign (Pheme, Proposition) “with antecedent and consequent” 3. Argument (Delome, Suadisign) “with antecedent, consequent, and principle of sequence” X. The triadic relation of the sign to its dynamic object and its normal interpretant “the Nature of the Assurance of the Utterance” 1. Assurance of Instinct 2. Assurance of Experience 3. Assurance of Form --- Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber archive@mail-archive.com --- Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber archive@mail-archive.com