Robert - I think that this lack of interest shows that there is an expiration date or rather closure mechanism, of interest in what others are writing and saying. So often- we simply Talk’ our own theories and ideas - and pay scant attention to others who might be exploring the same areas - but even more succinctly . We might even find fault with these others...
This doesn’t say much in favour of the ‘community of scholars’… Edwina > On Sep 29, 2025, at 11:08 AM, robert marty <[email protected]> wrote: > > Jack, List > I think you are referring to this book by Gianluca Caterina and Rocco Gangle: > > <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://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Marty> > https://martyrobert.academia.edu/ > > > > Le sam. 27 sept. 2025 à 21:26, Jack Cody <[email protected] > <mailto:[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] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> >> Sent: Saturday, September 27, 2025 6:33 PM >> To: Jack Cody <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> >> Cc: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>>; Edwina Taborsky <[email protected] >> <mailto:[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] >>> <mailto:[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] >>>> <mailto:[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] <mailto:[email protected]> >>>> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> on >>>> behalf of Edwina Taborsky <[email protected] >>>> <mailto:[email protected]>> >>>> Sent: Friday, September 26, 2025 2:41 PM >>>> To: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >>>> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> >>>> Cc: robert marty <[email protected] >>>> <mailto:[email protected]>>; edwina Taborsky >>>> <[email protected] <mailto:[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] >> <mailto:[email protected]> . >> ► <a href="mailto:[email protected] >> <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.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ► 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.
