Sung, if you still don't understand that dicisigns are essentially indexical, you can't possibly understand Frederik's comparison and contrast of them with other types of indexical signs (which you quote here as mine). You need to read and at least partially understand Chapter 3 of NP before venturing opinions on its argument. Your own semiotic theories appear to come from a different universe of discourse, one that I won't venture to comment on.
gary f. -----Original Message----- From: Sungchul Ji [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 10-Oct-14 7:57 AM (For undistorted figure and table, see the attached.) Jon, Gary F, lists, I have two questions: (1) Gary f wrote: “And it sets Dicisigns apart from simple indices which (101014-1) do nothing but exactly indicate their object (the pointing gesture, the proper name, the pronoun, etc.),” You are comparing dicisigns with indexes, but isn’t this like comparing “apples” and “oranges” ? As you know, ‘dicisign’ is the interpretant part of a sign which is always irreducibly triadic, i.e., sign = R-O-I, where R = representamen, O = object, and I = interpretant, while, and ‘index’ is the Object part of this triad. The R-O-I triad is a mathematical category (although Peirce did not use this term, may view him as one of the originators (if not the) of the concept of category, as I understand it): f g O ----- > R ----- > I | ^ | | |____________________| h Figure 1. the Peircean sign as a mathematical category, a system of metaphysical categories of 1ns, 2ns and 3ns. f = sign generation; g = interpretation; h = information flow, grounding, validation, etc. The key point of Figure 1 is that the Peircean triadic sign is a category of categories – the first category being mathematical and the second one being metaphysical. The table of 10 classes of signs specifies the rules of interaction between these two categories of categories: _________________________________________________________________ Table 1. The 9 types of ‘mnadic’ Peircean signs, out of which 10 classes of ‘triadic’ Peircean signs can be generated following the rules discussed below. R = representamen; O = object; I = interpretant (i.e., the effect the representamen has on the mind of the interpreter); 1ns = Firstness, 2ns = Secondness; 3ns = Thirdness. _______________________________________________________________ 1ns 2ns 3ns _______________________________________________________________ R qualisign sinsign legisign _______________________________________________________________ O icon index symbol _______________________________________________________________ I rheme dicisign argument _______________________________________________________________ Based on Figure 1 and Table 1, we can generate the 10 classes of triadic signs based on the following rules/restrictions: (a) When O is 1ns, R can be either qualisign, sinsign or legisign and I can only be rheme. (b) When O is 2ns, R cannot be qualisign and I cannot be argument. (c) When O is 3ns,R can only be legisign and I can be rheme, dicisign or argument. These rules can be “algebraicized” as shown in the quark model of the Peircean sign [biosemiotics:46]. According to these rules, there are three distinct kinds of dicisigns – (i) dicent indexical sinsign, (ii) decent indexical legisign, and (iii) decent symbolic legisign. It seems to me that we should be comparing these three kinds of dicisigns, not dicisigns with indexes, icons, or symbols. (2) Peirce wrote: “It is, thus, clear that the vital spark of every proposition, the peculiar propositional element of the proposition, is an indexical proposition, an index involving an icon." ("Kaina Stoicheia", 1904,EPII, 310). Again, according to his 10 classes of signs, there are no dicisigns that have icon as its object. (All triadic signs having icon as their object are rhemes.) Signs having iconic object would be named “dicent iconic qualisign”, “decent iconic sinsign”, or “decent iconic legisign”, all of which violate the selection rule of the quark model of the Peircean signs [biosemiotics:46]. Is it possible that Peirce himself inadvertently violated his own rules underlying the 10 classes of triadic signs ? Or am I mis-reading something ? With all the best. Sung
----------------------------- 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 the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
