Gary R., all,
Why isn't the idea of semiosis itself good enough for the capitalized "Sign"?
that you're discussing?
GR: "the triad itself in toto constitute[s] the Sign"
BU: The triad itself in toto constitutes semiosis.
GR: "Seen this way, the Sign is *not* three static parts, but an active,
self-referential loop."
BU: Semiosis is not three static parts, but an active, self-referential loop.
A Greek word for "sign" is right in there in the word "semiosis". The "-osis"
suffix connotes a becoming or action or process. The minimum case that makes sense has one object, one sign,
and one interpretant - that's the minimum schema of a case of semiosis - it's the minimum schema that plots a
genuinely triadic action.
GR: "what makes a Sign is not the mere coexistence of sign, object, and
interpretant, *but the dynamic process of the triadic relation reentering itself through
the production of further interpretants*"
BU: That's a quite recognizable description of semiosis: what makes a semiosis
is not the mere coexistence of sign, object, and interpretant, *but the dynamic
process of the triadic relation reentering itself through the production of
further interpretants.*
GR: "one could argue that the Sign is not simply the representamen or the
representamen plus its object, that the Sign is the whole triadic relation of
representamen, object, and interpretant *ensemble.* In this view, these three elements
together form an inseparable unity such that if any part were missing, the sign would be
incomplete"
BU: We could equally well call the whole triadic relation "the semiotic Object" or
"the Interpretant". The three elements (lower case) object, representamen, interpretant
together form an an inseparable unity such that if any part were missing, the semiotic Object would
be incomplete; or the Interpretant would be incomplete.
GR: if any of the three 'parts' of a temporal "durée" were to be missing, there
would be no Time. ....
...as it is in the *analysis* of Time, the central 'part' of the object -
representamen - interpretant triad is 'more present'.
BU: But we don't start calling time or durée "the Present", which would be the true
parallel to calling the semiosis "the Sign".
Semiosis is sign action, is genuinely triadic action, in Peirce's view.
There seems little difference between genuinely triadic action and genuinely triadic relation.
With the phrase "triadic relation", we're supposing an abstraction from the triadic
action, for intellectual convenience I guess. People could call triadic relation
"trilation" for short. We discussed that a few decades ago, as I recall.
*Best, Ben*
On 7/16/2025 6:39 PM, Gary Richmond wrote:
Jon, List,
In footnote 22 of "Temporal Synechism" you note that Andre de Tienne asks
the question "to what extent does the flow of time regulate the flow of
signs, and to what extent does the flow of signs influence or determine the
flow of time?" This post is meant to begin a discussion of that question.
Several days ago I had an off List exchange with Helmut Ralien which
included some comments of mine on an earlier Peirce-L post of his in which
he introduced the Spencer-Brown concept of 'reentry' into a discussion of
whether the sign (hereafter I'll use lowercase 'sign' to mean
'representamen') was a mere correlate within the object - sign -
interpretant triad, or whether *the triad itself in toto* constituted the
Sign (uppercase 'Sign' standing for that idea in this post).
I thought his introduction of Spencer-Brown's notion into the discussion
was brilliant, but I had some trouble following it. So, I made a few
suggestions as to how it might otherwise be approached. Here, with some
modifications related to the content of the recent thread on Time, is my
suggestion of an approach to the Spencer-Brown 'reentry' idea.
Some argue, with considerable textual support from Peirce, that sign
(representamen), object, and interpretant are but correlates within a
triadic semiotic relation, others that the triadic relation itself *is* the
Sign: that is, that one could argue that the Sign is not simply the
representamen or the representamen plus its object, that the Sign is the
whole triadic relation of representamen, object, and interpretant
*ensemble.* In this view, these three elements together form an inseparable
unity such that if any part were missing, the sign would be incomplete --
just as, if it were possible (which it obviously is not), if any of the
three 'parts' of a temporal "durée" were to be missing, there would be no
Time.
Spencer-Brown’s concept of 'reentry' might help clarify the matter by
showing how a distinction can fold back into itself. In *Laws of Form*,
'reentry' means that a distinction reenters the space it marks, creating
self-reference and recursion. In Peirce’s semeiotic, the interpretant is
itself most typically a new (or modified) sign, so the triad continually
regenerates itself in endless semiosis.
Seen this way, the Sign is *no*t three static parts, but an active,
self-referential loop. Reentry suggests that what makes a Sign is not the
mere coexistence of sign, object, and interpretant, but *the dynamic
process of the triadic relation reentering itself through the production of
further interpretants. Thus, from the standpoint of 'reentry', the sign is
the living triadic distinction continually folding back on itself -- not a
static correlate, but a process.*
In this view, it is only as an analytical contrivance in speculative
grammar that the distinction of object - sign - interpretant as correlates
holds. Rather, as it is in the *analysis *of Time, the central 'part' of
the object - representamen - interpretant triad is 'more present'. That is
all.
Best,
Gary R
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
ARISBE: THE PEIRCE GATEWAY is now at
https://cspeirce.com and, just as well, at
https://www.cspeirce.com . It'll take a while to repair / update all the links!
► PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON
PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go [email protected] .
► To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message NOT to PEIRCE-L but [email protected] with
UNSUBSCRIBE PEIRCE-L in the SUBJECT LINE of the message and nothing in the
body. More athttps://list.iu.edu/sympa/help/user-signoff.html .
► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary Richmond; and
co-managed by him and Ben Udell.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
ARISBE: THE PEIRCE GATEWAY is now at
https://cspeirce.com and, just as well, at
https://www.cspeirce.com . It'll take a while to repair / update all the links!
► 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
UNSUBSCRIBE PEIRCE-L in the SUBJECT LINE of the message and nothing in the
body. More at https://list.iu.edu/sympa/help/user-signoff.html .
► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary Richmond; and
co-managed by him and Ben Udell.
