Jack, List I continue with my examination of the semiosic process – which is never linear but always dialogic and complex in that it gains and loses and transforms data to arrive at its conclusions..
My example is the lizard-and-the-fly. Both are semiosic entities, meaning that they have the capacity to interact with the world in a semiosic triadic process. 1] The lizard and the fly are both ‘external objects’ in the world – and then- once they interact, each becomes part of the semiosic dialogue and thus, becomes a DO [Dynamic Object] of the other. Using Marty’s lattice [and I may be wrong] – at the moment of their interaction, each is semiotically operating as a qualisign [111]..sensing the sensual actuality of each. And this sets up an ‘accretive path’ where the semiosic information is ‘enlarged’ and clarified’ in a number of steps. Within the process ‘at each step, an element of the triadic sign ‘gains’ in category’ or knowledge and interactive capacity.. If we just take the lizard – it senses, as a qualisign [111 ]the sensual actuality of an ’other’ in its local environment. This DO data becomes the IO [Immediate Object] by which I mean that it loses ambiguity and becomes focused [112]. Noise is rejected [ ie, irrelevant data, ie from the leaf the insect is sitting on] and becomes an Iconic Legisign, or typologically specific as an insect [113] and then, via the input knowledge from the Representamen, even more specific as a RIL rhematic indexical Legisign [ 123] – which means – ‘this particular entity is, for me, an edible insect’…..which also means that as the Immediate Interpretant, which focuses the Will, that an action can be taken as the Dynamic. Interpretant – to – eat the insect. 2] As for the Insect – it too senses the lizard as a qualisign ..and goes through the same accretion of information, to conclude , probably quite early at the Iconic Legisign stage [113] that ‘this is a predator..and its DI [Dynamic interpretant is..to fly very quickly away. Edwina > On Sep 26, 2025, at 3:12 PM, Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Jack, List > > I think I’m allowed a second post on a day..still not sure…but I’d like to > applaud Jack’s post here - Far more important than the ‘ad nauseam > discussions over the precision of terms - is to explore, to understand what > exactly is going on in this semiotic process! > > Semiosis is not just some isolate rhetoric - getting dangerously close to the > medieval debates of angels-on-a-pin. Semiosis is a scientific examination of > actual reality - the phaneron…and what and how matter/energy/information is > actually formed, is transformed, within precise..not terms..but precise > triadic morphological processes! > > How does matter/energy/information move and become morphologically specific > within the interaction of a lizard..which is a semiotic organism…with another > semiotic organism, eg, an insect…right from the first interaction of the two > [ both as Dynamic Objects to each other] and..as Dynamic Interpretants [ of > each other! ]. What energy/information must be added, must be lost..will be > picked up by some other semiotic organism…and..What semiotic organization [ > via the Representamen process] is working in this interaction? And..as Robert > Marty points out in his lattice - how many phases of these triads takes > place..to move from the first interactions [ DO] to the Dynamic > Interpretants? > > You can, of course, do the same with human verbal interaction - { I just > happen to find the non-verbal semiosis more interesting]…what happens within > a dialogue interaction of two Dynamic Objects, persons A and B and their > rhetoric…..How is the information processed within their two different > Representamen knowledge bases..to produce Dynamic Interpretants that might > have no relationship to the original Dynamic Objects? > > It’s the complex energy/informationprocess, as ‘handled’ by the movements > within the semiosic lattice - that, in my view, provides the most productive > analysis of the phaneron. > > Edwina > > > >> On Sep 26, 2025, at 2:32 PM, Jack Cody <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Edwina, List, >> >> I agree entirely with what Edwina has said regarding R. Marty's work. Peirce >> lives or dies with respect to the kind of work R. Marty has done here where >> the structuralism, necessarily deduced from Peirce's writings, is given >> mathematically and precisely (in numerical structure). Far more valuable, in >> my opinion, than arguments ad nauseum over the precision of certain terms. >> Indeed, following the work done one could switch out all of Peirce's terms >> and retain his basic structure —which is surely the "scientific" point. >> (arbitary state grammars, etc, with respect to a structuralism which Peirce >> understood to be non-arbtirary). >> >> Best >> Jack >> From: [email protected] <[email protected]> on behalf >> of Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> >> Sent: Friday, September 26, 2025 2:41 PM >> To: [email protected] <[email protected]> >> Cc: robert marty <[email protected]>; edwina Taborsky >> <[email protected]> >> Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Indexicality and Speculative Grammar (was Facts, >> Opinion, Perspective, and Inquiry) >> >> List >> >> Robert Marty provided us with a lattice of the ten classes of triadic signs- >> and referred to them as showing ‘a phenomenological principle of >> embodiments’. >> >> I think that should be the focus - not the terms that Peirce used - but the >> actuality of semiosis. What does semiosis do? It is an organizational >> process that ‘embodies’ energy/matter/information into one form, and then, >> enables the transformation of this form with its energy/matter/information >> content…into another morphological form. This suggests that semiosis >> organizes energy/matter/information - and both ADDS to one >> embodiment..and/or REMOVES from an embodiment. And also- reorganizes try >> content... >> >> Robert has shown this in his lattice, where. For example, a Dicent Indexical >> Legisign [322] a street cry] embodies Rheumatic Indexical Legisigns [321] a >> demonstrative pronoun…Notice that the Dicent has picked up information, or >> added information, to that Rhematic triad. It’s moved from an interpretant >> in Firstness to one in Secondness - it’s more specific and focused. Now- how >> did it do this? Where did this extra information come from? Is it the >> Legisign process that is transforming this morphology? >> >> Edwina >
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ► 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] . ► <a href="mailto:[email protected]?subject=SIG%20peirce-l";>UNSUBSCRIBE FROM PEIRCE-L</a> . But, if your subscribed email account is not your default email account, then go to https://list.iu.edu/sympa/signoff/peirce-l . ► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary Richmond; and co-managed by him and Ben Udell.
