Jack, List I think you are referring to this book by Gianluca Caterina and Rocco Gangle:
[image: image.png] I may have come across it on Academia, and when I saw that its authors were proposing a formalization of Peirce's Theory of Signs in section 2 in 2016, using category theory: 2 Iconicity in Peirce’s Semiotics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 2.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 2.2 Peirce’s Theory of Signs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 2.2.1 Peirce’s General SOI Schema . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 2.2.2 Three Trichotomies and Ten Classes of Signs. . . . . . . . . . . 30 I wrote to one of the authors that I had published this 40 years earlier and that I had taken it further by exploring the relations of affinity between classes of signs up to the lattice, which they themselves had not done. So there was a gap in their bibliography. In response, this author thanked me for my interest, kindly sent me a PDF of the book, and promised to read my work, while pointing out that their book, published in 2016, records recent progress in the application of category theory to Peirce's semiotics and diagrammatic logic. He then offered to send me more recent articles.. Since then, nothing. Could this remark be a sign that there is an expiration date for scientific work that we are not aware of? I aspire even more than you do to see Peirce mathematically accepted. It is not very serious to proclaim everywhere that Peirce is a polymath and to underestimate a science that he places, in all his classifications, in first position in the Sciences of Discovery in the Well of Truth; and which he says is a model for his conceptions of "Exact Thinking" and "Exact Philosophy" (see my chapter 1). Best regards, Robert Marty Honorary Professor ; PhD Mathematics ; PhD Philosophy fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Marty *https://martyrobert.academia.edu/ <https://martyrobert.academia.edu/>* Le sam. 27 sept. 2025 à 21:26, Jack Cody <[email protected]> a écrit : > 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. >
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ► 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]";>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.
