Gary F,
I did read that part of Chapter 3 yesterday and had several questions, one
of which is what I raised below.
Sorry for the wrong attribution.
The quark model of the Peircean sign [biosemiotics:46] is straight from
Peirce, nowhere else.
Let me summarize the quark model of the Peircean sign and if you find that
this does not agree with Peirces sign theory, I would appreciate if you
would let me know.
(1) The Peircean sign can be denoted as S_i,j,k, (which to some may mean
S. Ji, a Korean !), where i, j, and k are subindexes, each having
numerical values 1, 2 or 3.
(2) The order of the subindexes, i, j and k in S_i,j,k, indicates the
order of the elementary signs in the composite sign which consists of
interpretant (symbolized as 1), object (symbolized as 2) and
representamen (symbolized as 3), i.e., I-O-R. this indicates the syntax
of the Peircean sign triad.
(3) A typical triadic sign has the notation, S_112, S_233, or S_223,
indicating, respectively, rhematic iconic qualisign, dicent symbolic
legisign,and dicent indexical legisign. In other words the following
inequality must be obeyed:
i <= j <= k (7186-1)
where the symbol <= indicates less than or equal to.
Inequality (7186-1) thus can be viewed as the algebraic representation of
the Peircean sign, whereas Figure 1 in [biosemiotics:7184] (see below) is
a diagrammatic and category-theoretical representation of the same.
With all the best.
Sung
___________________________________________________
Sungchul Ji, Ph.D.
Associate Professor of Pharmacology and Toxicology
Department of Pharmacology and Toxicology
Ernest Mario School of Pharmacy
Rutgers University
Piscataway, N.J. 08855
732-445-4701
www.conformon.net
> 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:
>
> âAnd 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.),â
>
>
> You are comparing dicisigns with indexes, but isnât this like comparing
> âapplesâ and âorangesâ ? As you know, âdicisignâ 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 âindexâ 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 â 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 âmnadicâ Peircean signs, out of
> which 10 classes of âtriadicâ 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 âalgebraicizedâ as shown in the quark model of the
> Peircean sign [biosemiotics:46].
>
>
> According to these rules, there are three distinct kinds of dicisigns â
> (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:
>
> âIt 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 âdicent iconic
> qualisignâ, âdecent iconic sinsignâ, or âdecent iconic
> legisignâ, 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 .
