Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Semeiotic Visualization
Helmut - I've long advocated a triadic temporality, based on the work of Koichiro Matsuno, and have referred to such in various conference papers and publications. I'm providing my analytic model, which is set up within a Cartesian quadrant, for the Six Peircean Relations, within their spatial and temporal values and categorical modes, in the attachment - as I don't know how to include it in this post. You will notice four spatial modes and three temporal modes. The Relation of 3-3 is not included in the quadrant as it is both aspatial and atemporal. Edwina. Epistemological Cut - Original Message - From: Helmut Raulien To: [email protected] Cc: Jon Alan Schmidt ; Gary Richmond ; Peirce-L Sent: Wednesday, August 26, 2015 11:44 AM Subject: Aw: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Semeiotic Visualization Edwina, Jon, Gary, List, so, maybe it would be good to introduce a time-axis into the visualization? Best, Helmut "Edwina Taborsky" The thing is, as I said earlier, the Sign (that triad) is not a closed entity-in-itself. It operates in a complex network. So, for example, the Dynamic Interpretant, in a mode of Firstness or Secondness or even Thirdness...could connect with, and its informational content in whole or part, could become part of a particular Dynamic Object. Or be generalized within the laws of a Representamen. And then, that new Dynamic Object, and new Representamen, could function again, in another semiosic interaction, and move on this time to the Final Interpretant...which could, yet again, become part of that original Dynamic Object...and be generalized within the Representamen. And so on. It's a dynamic, complex, evolving process - and there's no Final State. Edwina - Original Message - From: Jon Alan Schmidt To: Gary Richmond ; [email protected] Cc: Peirce-L Sent: Tuesday, August 25, 2015 1:41 PM Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Semeiotic Visualization Gary, Edwina, List: Thanks for the kind words. I am still pondering whether this way of visualizing everything might offer any helpful insights about the nature of the various trichotomies and their logical order of determination, especially when it comes to the interpretants. Jon - 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 .
Aw: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Semeiotic Visualization
Edwina, Jon, Gary, List, so, maybe it would be good to introduce a time-axis into the visualization? Best, Helmut "Edwina Taborsky" The thing is, as I said earlier, the Sign (that triad) is not a closed entity-in-itself. It operates in a complex network. So, for example, the Dynamic Interpretant, in a mode of Firstness or Secondness or even Thirdness...could connect with, and its informational content in whole or part, could become part of a particular Dynamic Object. Or be generalized within the laws of a Representamen. And then, that new Dynamic Object, and new Representamen, could function again, in another semiosic interaction, and move on this time to the Final Interpretant...which could, yet again, become part of that original Dynamic Object...and be generalized within the Representamen. And so on. It's a dynamic, complex, evolving process - and there's no Final State. Edwina - Original Message - From: Jon Alan Schmidt To: Gary Richmond ; [email protected] Cc: Peirce-L Sent: Tuesday, August 25, 2015 1:41 PM Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Semeiotic Visualization Gary, Edwina, List: Thanks for the kind words. I am still pondering whether this way of visualizing everything might offer any helpful insights about the nature of the various trichotomies and their logical order of determination, especially when it comes to the interpretants. Jon - 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 .
Re: [PEIRCE-L] Semeiotic Visualization
Sung, List: Good question--and I hope that someone else can answer it! Honestly, I have browsed through various pages on that website several times, but have not yet been able to get a good handle on it. For one thing, the proposed order of determination for the ten trichotomies--actually eleven, since (S-Od-Id) has been added--is quite different from any that I have seen elsewhere. Oi => Ii => S => Od => Id => If => (S-Od) => (S-Id) => (S-If) => (S-Od-Id) => (S-Od-If) By contrast, Peirce himself explicitly wrote that Od => Oi => S and (S-If) => (S-Id). Has Dr. Romanini explained anywhere why he disagrees with these two specific arrangements? If so, I have not found it yet. Regards, Jon On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 4:14 PM, Sungchul Ji wrote: > Jon, > > How is your model of semiotic trichotomies related to Vinicius' solenoid > model of semiosis (http://www.minutesemeiotic.org/?p=30) ? > > All the best. > > Sung > -- > Sungchul Ji, Ph.D. > > Associate Professor of Pharmacology and Toxicology > Department of Pharmacology and Toxicology > Ernest Mario School of Pharmacy > Rutgers University > Piscataway, N.J. 08855 > 732-445-4701 > > www.conformon.net > - 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 .
Re: [PEIRCE-L] Semeiotic Visualization
Jon, How is your model of semiotic trichotomies related to Vinicius' solenoid model of semiosis (http://www.minutesemeiotic.org/?p=30) ? All the best. Sung On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 1:41 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt wrote: > Gary, Edwina, List: > > Thanks for the kind words. I am still pondering whether this way of > visualizing everything might offer any helpful insights about the nature of > the various trichotomies and their logical order of determination, > especially when it comes to the interpretants. > > Jon > > > - > 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 > . > > > > > > -- Sungchul Ji, Ph.D. Associate Professor of Pharmacology and Toxicology Department of Pharmacology and Toxicology Ernest Mario School of Pharmacy Rutgers University Piscataway, N.J. 08855 732-445-4701 www.conformon.net - 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 .
Re: [PEIRCE-L] Semeiotic Visualization
The thing is, as I said earlier, the Sign (that triad) is not a closed entity-in-itself. It operates in a complex network. So, for example, the Dynamic Interpretant, in a mode of Firstness or Secondness or even Thirdness...could connect with, and its informational content in whole or part, could become part of a particular Dynamic Object. Or be generalized within the laws of a Representamen. And then, that new Dynamic Object, and new Representamen, could function again, in another semiosic interaction, and move on this time to the Final Interpretant...which could, yet again, become part of that original Dynamic Object...and be generalized within the Representamen. And so on. It's a dynamic, complex, evolving process - and there's no Final State. Edwina - Original Message - From: Jon Alan Schmidt To: Gary Richmond ; [email protected] Cc: Peirce-L Sent: Tuesday, August 25, 2015 1:41 PM Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Semeiotic Visualization Gary, Edwina, List: Thanks for the kind words. I am still pondering whether this way of visualizing everything might offer any helpful insights about the nature of the various trichotomies and their logical order of determination, especially when it comes to the interpretants. Jon - 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 .
Re: [PEIRCE-L] Semeiotic Visualization
Gary, Edwina, List: Thanks for the kind words. I am still pondering whether this way of visualizing everything might offer any helpful insights about the nature of the various trichotomies and their logical order of determination, especially when it comes to the interpretants. Jon - 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 .
Re: [PEIRCE-L] Semeiotic Visualization
Edwina, Jon, Well, I couldn't possibly have said it better, Edwina. Jon, I agree--it's a very nice diagram indeed. Best, Gary [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 Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 6:06 PM, Edwina Taborsky wrote: > Hmm - rather interesting...Actually- very, very nice. > > What I like about it is the networking. No sign, eg, the triad, exists > 'per se' on its own; it's always networked with other signs, both near and > far - and even - parts/nodes of other signs. And I like the nested > complexity, with each part interacting, adding to..other parts. > > So, I like your Immediate. Object-connection to the Immediate > Interpretant. BOTH are internal, and you've connected them...with the > mediation of the Representamen in between. A kind of internal semiosic act. > > Then, you've expanded the network with the external realm - the Dynamic > Object linked with the Dynamic Interpretant, again, with the mediation of > the Representamen. An external semiosic act, with the internal nested > within it. Very nice... > > And, your Final Interpretant linked with the Representamen...AND with the > external Dynamic Object. Very nice... > > It's an active, complex and evolving interaction.Really- very well > done. > > Edwina > > - Original Message - > *From:* Jon Alan Schmidt > *To:* Gary Richmond ; [email protected] > *Cc:* Peirce-L > *Sent:* Monday, August 24, 2015 5:53 PM > *Subject:* [PEIRCE-L] Semeiotic Visualization > > Gary, Edwina, List: > > Since the subject came up ... > > Last week, while wrestling with the three interpretants and their proper > order of determination, I was playing around with some speculative > diagrams--not of the Peircean triad, but of the ten trichotomies. I ended > up with this as a rough first pass. > > [image: Inline image 1] > > The correlates are points, the dyadic relations are lines, and the triadic > relations are planes; except that the bottom of the tetrahedron consists > entirely of signs, all of which are in the same causal relation to the > dynamic object as described by Hulswit--formal (necessary condition) for > icons, efficient for indexes, or final for symbols. The immediate object > and interpretant are closely bound to the sign itself. The dynamic > interpretant tends toward the final interpretant. > > Thoughts? Please be gentle ... > > Jon > > On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 4:09 PM, Gary Richmond > wrote: > >> ET: Just a brief comment - Nadin uses the triangle as an image for the >> Peircean triad - and I consider this a problem. The image of the triangle >> is closed and linear; the best image for the Peircean triad is the one >> Peirce himself used: (1.347), the three-spoked umbrella. It's not linear; >> it's interactive; it enables, importantly, networking...for no Peircean >> sign exists on its own; it's always networked. >> >> >> I myself don't have that much of a problem with this use of the triangle. >> For one thing, Peirce *does* use the triangle, notably in the famous >> Welby diagram, to show triadic relations in semiotics. Granted, these are >> analytically 'frozen' relations, so speak, but they are quite convenient in >> certain cases. Indeed they can, as in the Welby diagram, reveal information >> wjocj other diagrammatic techniques wouldn't show as well (for example, the >> central trikon which you have occasionally referred to in the Welby >> diagram; and there are other relations the Welby triangle reveals). But I >> agree with you that for many purposes the three-pronged figure is "more >> iconic" than the triangle. >> >> But, just to argue this a bit further, draw three lines from the vertices >> of an equilateral triangle to its center and you have the three-spoked >> figure. This is to say that the triangle implies the three-spokes, while a >> particular abstracted diagram may not require it. So, again, and in a word, >> I don't think one need insist on the three-spoked figure in all instances. >> But I would tend to agree with you that for many purposes (beyond certain >> analytical ones such as the classification of sign types) that the >> three-spoked figure is preferable for the reasons you gave. >> > -- > > > - > 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
Re: [PEIRCE-L] Semeiotic Visualization
Hmm - rather interesting...Actually- very, very nice. What I like about it is the networking. No sign, eg, the triad, exists 'per se' on its own; it's always networked with other signs, both near and far - and even - parts/nodes of other signs. And I like the nested complexity, with each part interacting, adding to..other parts. So, I like your Immediate. Object-connection to the Immediate Interpretant. BOTH are internal, and you've connected them...with the mediation of the Representamen in between. A kind of internal semiosic act. Then, you've expanded the network with the external realm - the Dynamic Object linked with the Dynamic Interpretant, again, with the mediation of the Representamen. An external semiosic act, with the internal nested within it. Very nice... And, your Final Interpretant linked with the Representamen...AND with the external Dynamic Object. Very nice... It's an active, complex and evolving interaction.Really- very well done. Edwina - Original Message - From: Jon Alan Schmidt To: Gary Richmond ; [email protected] Cc: Peirce-L Sent: Monday, August 24, 2015 5:53 PM Subject: [PEIRCE-L] Semeiotic Visualization Gary, Edwina, List: Since the subject came up ... Last week, while wrestling with the three interpretants and their proper order of determination, I was playing around with some speculative diagrams--not of the Peircean triad, but of the ten trichotomies. I ended up with this as a rough first pass. The correlates are points, the dyadic relations are lines, and the triadic relations are planes; except that the bottom of the tetrahedron consists entirely of signs, all of which are in the same causal relation to the dynamic object as described by Hulswit--formal (necessary condition) for icons, efficient for indexes, or final for symbols. The immediate object and interpretant are closely bound to the sign itself. The dynamic interpretant tends toward the final interpretant. Thoughts? Please be gentle ... Jon On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 4:09 PM, Gary Richmond wrote: ET: Just a brief comment - Nadin uses the triangle as an image for the Peircean triad - and I consider this a problem. The image of the triangle is closed and linear; the best image for the Peircean triad is the one Peirce himself used: (1.347), the three-spoked umbrella. It's not linear; it's interactive; it enables, importantly, networking...for no Peircean sign exists on its own; it's always networked. I myself don't have that much of a problem with this use of the triangle. For one thing, Peirce does use the triangle, notably in the famous Welby diagram, to show triadic relations in semiotics. Granted, these are analytically 'frozen' relations, so speak, but they are quite convenient in certain cases. Indeed they can, as in the Welby diagram, reveal information wjocj other diagrammatic techniques wouldn't show as well (for example, the central trikon which you have occasionally referred to in the Welby diagram; and there are other relations the Welby triangle reveals). But I agree with you that for many purposes the three-pronged figure is "more iconic" than the triangle. But, just to argue this a bit further, draw three lines from the vertices of an equilateral triangle to its center and you have the three-spoked figure. This is to say that the triangle implies the three-spokes, while a particular abstracted diagram may not require it. So, again, and in a word, I don't think one need insist on the three-spoked figure in all instances. But I would tend to agree with you that for many purposes (beyond certain analytical ones such as the classification of sign types) that the three-spoked figure is preferable for the reasons you gave. -- - 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 .
[PEIRCE-L] Semeiotic Visualization
Gary, Edwina, List: Since the subject came up ... Last week, while wrestling with the three interpretants and their proper order of determination, I was playing around with some speculative diagrams--not of the Peircean triad, but of the ten trichotomies. I ended up with this as a rough first pass. [image: Inline image 1] The correlates are points, the dyadic relations are lines, and the triadic relations are planes; except that the bottom of the tetrahedron consists entirely of signs, all of which are in the same causal relation to the dynamic object as described by Hulswit--formal (necessary condition) for icons, efficient for indexes, or final for symbols. The immediate object and interpretant are closely bound to the sign itself. The dynamic interpretant tends toward the final interpretant. Thoughts? Please be gentle ... Jon On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 4:09 PM, Gary Richmond wrote: > ET: Just a brief comment - Nadin uses the triangle as an image for the > Peircean triad - and I consider this a problem. The image of the triangle > is closed and linear; the best image for the Peircean triad is the one > Peirce himself used: (1.347), the three-spoked umbrella. It's not linear; > it's interactive; it enables, importantly, networking...for no Peircean > sign exists on its own; it's always networked. > > > I myself don't have that much of a problem with this use of the triangle. > For one thing, Peirce *does* use the triangle, notably in the famous > Welby diagram, to show triadic relations in semiotics. Granted, these are > analytically 'frozen' relations, so speak, but they are quite convenient in > certain cases. Indeed they can, as in the Welby diagram, reveal information > wjocj other diagrammatic techniques wouldn't show as well (for example, the > central trikon which you have occasionally referred to in the Welby > diagram; and there are other relations the Welby triangle reveals). But I > agree with you that for many purposes the three-pronged figure is "more > iconic" than the triangle. > > But, just to argue this a bit further, draw three lines from the vertices > of an equilateral triangle to its center and you have the three-spoked > figure. This is to say that the triangle implies the three-spokes, while a > particular abstracted diagram may not require it. So, again, and in a word, > I don't think one need insist on the three-spoked figure in all instances. > But I would tend to agree with you that for many purposes (beyond certain > analytical ones such as the classification of sign types) that the > three-spoked figure is preferable for the reasons you gave. > - 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 .
