Joseph, lists, There is no " violation of his own selection rule" in Peirce's definition of the Dicisign.
Both the ten-sign triangle (EP2:296) and what Jerry calls the "triadic triad" are static, schematic diagrams intended to give a simplified representation of Peirce's analysis, which is given in full in the Syllabus written to accompany Peirce's Lowell Lectures of 1903, i.e. in EP2:267-99. That analysis is highly complex and dynamic, and ignorance of it can only lead to misreading of the diagrams which crudely represent the skeleton of it. Frederik in NP provides generous selections from the part of that analysis which relates to Dicisigns, plus other related texts, and highlights some of the key ideas, such as inference being the one essential logical process. But the context of all that, the Peircean analysis itself, is best understood by critically reading what Peirce wrote (and probably more than once!), not by inventing speculative spinoffs based on schematic short cuts. The periodic table of elements does not tell us how to do chemistry; it's a memory aid for chemists. Likewise the Peircean diagrams do not tell us how to do semiotics. We learn that by doing it, not by inventing formulaic analogies to schematic representations of it. gary f. -----Original Message----- From: Joseph Brenner [mailto:joe.bren...@bluewin.ch] Sent: 1-Nov-14 5:04 AM To: biosemiot...@lists.ut.ee; Jerry LR Chandler Cc: Peirce List; biosemiot...@lists.ut.ee Subject: [biosemiotics:7324] Re: Natural Propositions Dear Colleagues, Sungchul wrote: (6) Peirce seems to give an alternative definition of "dicisign" as > extensively quoted in NP as a composite sign having both iconic and > indexical characters, in violation of his own selection rule embodied > int he triadic triad table. Where signs are 'composite', that is, composed of two or more elements and these are not purely linguistic propositions but structures-in-nature, this fact leaves the further door open to their interaction and probability of mutual change. Look for example at Peirce's discussion of personality and communication in "The Law of Mind". We could not be farther here from the cold entries in any 3X3 (or 9X10) matrix. As one goes from propositions to 'quasi-propositions', one moves, as with Krause's paraconsistent 'quasi-individuals', closer to the dynamic characteristics of real physical processes. Peirce's inconsistencies are often presented as marginal to his main system of thought. I believe, on the contrary that they, and his 'movement' between them, are central to it. Whether or not they are recognized as such or stated as 'doubts', by Peirce or others, Peirce opens the door, implicitly or explicitly, to the existence of other systems, with other foundations. Perhaps in the vast literature someone has speculated on Peirce's own psychology in this regard. Thank you. Joseph ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sungchul Ji" <s...@rci.rutgers.edu> To: "Jerry LR Chandler" <jerry_lr_chand...@me.com> Cc: "Peirce List" <peirce-l@list.iupui.edu>; <biosemiot...@lists.ut.ee> Sent: Saturday, November 01, 2014 12:26 AM Subject: [biosemiotics:7323] Re: Natural Propositions > Jerry wrote: > > "If not, what would be a more appropriate term for this (103114-1) > ORGANIZED group of terms?" > > (1) It is necessary to distinguish the 9 TYPES of signs in the 3x3 table > and the 10 CLASSES of signs built on them constrained by what I call the > "Piercean selection rule" explained below. > (2) I suggested in the attached table that the 9 types of signs be > referred to "elementary signs" and the 10 classes of signs, each composed > of three of these elementary signs, as the "composite signs". > (3) Composite signs can be represented systematically as S_ijk, the > subindex i referring to the interpretant, j to the object and k to the > representamen (see the table attached). > (4) The Peircean selection rule simply states that the subindex i cannot > be greater than j which in turn cannot be greater than k. > (5) According to the 10 classes of signs, dicisign is not a triadic (or > composite) sign but one of the 9 types of elementary signs that refer to > the relation between representamen and interpretant in the mode of > Secondness. > (6) Peirce seems to give an alternative definition of "dicisign" as > extensively quoted in NP as a composite sign having both iconic and > indexical characters, in violation of his own selection rule embodied int > he triadic triad table. > > 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 > > > > >> List: >> >> A factual question concerning CSP writings, relative to Gary's and Sung's >> recent assertions and FS assertions wrt to the meanings of rhetorical >> logic. Why are rhetorical terms grouped together, anyway? >> >> I recall a passage that states the second and third rows of the triadic >> triad are both aspects of the representamen of objects. >> Can anyone cite the text? >> >> This nine terms are presented, by CSP, in a fixed pattern and related by >> fixed relations, thus none of them alone can be considered as an >> independent term in the sense of a dictionary definition. >> >> Is not the basic issue, why did CSP opt (e.g., in the grammatical sense >> of >> the mood of a verb ) to present this pattern? >> >> BTW, all nine terms of the triadic triad, as written as (philosophical) >> artifacts, are interpretants, are they not? >> >>
----------------------------- PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
