Edwina, Jon, List What I'd be interested in seeing, given the abundance of technology available, is a kind of proto-algorithm which is formed around the basics of R.M's work. That is, it wouldn't be overly difficult to produce a code whereby dynamic (general here, not the Peircean usage) transitions between different modalities occur within a non-arbitrary way. I believe this goes to what Edwina and Jon, in an earlier post, each are saying in different ways.
I remember a book by Rocco and Gangle, if I'm not mistaken which did great work in this area. It was really a great book —they've focused a lot on Peirce's work and anyone here can go on Academia.. and look/request various copies. I did so some years back. But to take that forward into a kind of algorithm which would, mathematically, be precise so that we could, all, understand where the scientific advantage of the necessary semeiotic structur(ing) lies. This is a broad comment, but it would have to do with different trichotomies as Jon said, and also basic relationships as that between a Lizard and Fly, as per Edwina's comments. I suppose I yearn now for the mathematically agreed upon Peirce to be born — it exists, and I, though it's not my strongest area within Peirce, can see it clearly in R.M's work. So, yes, very interested in said work and comments relating to what R.M has done here. Best Jack ________________________________ From: Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> Sent: Saturday, September 27, 2025 6:33 PM To: Jack Cody <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected] <[email protected]>; Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] IThe Semiosic Process [was ndexicality and Speculative Grammar (was Facts, Opinion, Perspective, and Inquiry) 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.
