Mary, Gary F.,
Gary F., thanks for changing the subject title. I had renamed it
'Contradictories, Contraries [etc]' and then it unexpectedly veered back
toward the original subject, I should have changed the title when that
happened.
Mary, you did indeed write the starting post in this subthread. (You
sent it only to the biosemiotics list, but Gary Richmond forwarded it
peirce-l (I provide these links so everybody can peruse)
(gmane) http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/15394
(IUPUI) https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/arc/peirce-l/2015-01/msg00102.html
and replied to it:
(gmane) http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/15404
(IUPUI) https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/arc/peirce-l/2015-01/msg00112.html
and your text (originally in reply to Jeffrey Brian Downard) follows
Gary R.'s reply.)
I wasn't active in the subthread till a bit later but I did read your
original post. As regards the questions that you posed there:
*1.* From your original post:
> For example I, like many readers, relate the dicisign overall as
Stjernfelt has presented it to his far-reaching cpt. 8: "Operational
and Optimal Iconicity in Peirce¹s Diagrammatology.² How do the two
kinds of iconicity (chapter 8) Optimal and Operational Icons), make
sense when I relate them to or place them in dialogue with the
dynamic and immediate objects of the index? I wonder, does a
dicisign posit or ³say² that there exists (may exist, hypothetically
exists) a written or spoken proposition SRO (Subject Relation
Object)? Š that the whole proposition (seen completed after the fact
or seen hypothetically completed before the fact of writing or
utterance or action) is made up of two parts? To distinguish the
object as optimal and operational in relation to the dicisign, I
consider the index as it operates in an icon and the index as it
operates as an index. (The node between the two, the index and icon,
as they reach out and for that moment exist. Is Stjernfelt saying,
in other words, that there (1) exists an object, undistributed in
relation to the subject and that there (2) exists an object of this
specific subject under discussion that is distributed (that are
under discussion,that are being thought, that are coming into a
realer or more iconic existence)? What and who have or will have
placed these in discussion may be the Grapheus and the Graphist, the
realist and the doubter, but the Universe.
[End quote]
I confess that I didn't understand it! I admit that I was feeling kind
of obtuse. I was hoping that others' subsequent discussion would clarify it.
*2.* From your original post:
> I find some loose ends in my thinking about Peirce, amplified
somewhat by NP. Is the recto/verso Sheet of Discourse, the ³leaf²
pointed to by Stjernfelt, boundless, and in what dimension? I always
imagine it as a mobius strip when the sign is in process, but the
boundaries of the Universe of Discourse that are discussed by
linguists and others are raised. Just now I continue with the leaf
(sheet of assertion) analogy and consider the node of life at the
stem as it grows. I will continue to think through these icons.
[End qote]
I thought about the Mobius strip idea but I stopped because I was
uncertain about whether existential graphs have chirality, but I think
that they don't, and anyway it doesn't matter (I was wondering about a
graph that locally seems on the verso, what happens to it when one moves
it around the Mobius strip to what locally seems the recto). Shaping a
sheet into a Mobius strip makes it all recto and no verso, as Gary F.
said, and eliminates the ability to negate a graph. I think Peirce
somewhere talks about logic without negation. Anyway it can have only
particular affirmatives and conjunctive compounds of particular
affirmatives, a one-sided logic so the Mobius strip is actually perfect
for it. If you want it to be unbounded, the surface of a Klein bottle
would do that
https://people.math.osu.edu/fiedorowicz.1/math655/Klein2.html . Anyway I
guessed that you were trying to think of a way for there to be a
referential relation between a recto graph and a verso 'possibility'
graph. I remember once trying to think of some topological trick for that.
Best, Ben
On 1/20/2015 10:36 AM, Gary Fuhrman wrote:
Mary,
The subject line got truncated in your post so I made up a new and
shorter one to continue the thread.
I can only speak for myself — I read your post carefully more than
once, but left it to others to reply to it (which Gary R had already
done, actually) because I had no answers to the questions you raised
in it. I couldn't make a connection between your suggestion of
“would-be hypothetical situations, such as the mobius strip” and
Peirce's idea of using the verso of the sheet of assertion as the area
inside a cut. In fact I still don't see a connection. A mobius strip,
being a bounded surface with only one side, doesn't have a verso, and
I don't see how it relates to Peirce's “discovery” that the verso of
the sheet represents “a kind of possibility” and not just the negation
of the graph within the cut. I also couldn't get a handle on your
question “Would boundedness exist in a mobius strip?” or its relevance
to the issue we’ve been discussing yesterday and today.
Maybe it’s just my obtuseness, but you’ll need to explain what you
were driving at before I can see its relevance to Jeff’s post that I
did reply to. (I assume you want to be given credit for more than just
mentioning the “verso” in your post, but I don’t yet see what else in
it anticipates Jeff’s post).
gary f.
-----Original Message-----
From: Libertin, Mary
Sent: 20-Jan-15 8:36 AM
To: biosemiot...@lists.ut.ee
Subject: [biosemiotics:7975] Re: Contradictories, contraries, etc. WAS
Jeffrey, Gary R, Lists,
I brought up significance of the verso side of the existential graphs
in my most recent post last week, but have not been acknowledged as
the initiator of this thread. Gary R. responded to my comment on the
distributed and undistributed significance of the immediate and
direct objects of the dicisign. I wrote:
"I do think we should go on. Stjernfelt places his discussion of the
dicisign in as large a Universe of Discourse as is practical for his
audience. We need to be more tolerant of interdisciplinary analogies.
I also think we need some instruction when we find it necessary,
which means we should ask. Here are some of the questions that came
to mind after the third time reading NP: how is the sheet of
assertion, recto and verso sides, to be understood in various
³would¹be² hypothetical situations, such as the mobius strip. Would
boundedness exist in a mobius strip? The concepts of in/out, the
whole or the part of the universe of discourse are in chapter 8,
along with many other important thoughts, juxtapositions, questions,
and musings. . . ”
I have been researching this area and find it surprising that my
initial discussion has been overlooked. If this is the first time the
issue has been discussed I wish to be given credit or acknowledged in
the discussion.
Mary Libertin
Mary Libertin, PhD
Professor of English
Shippensburg University of PA
Shippensburg PA 17257
mli...@ship.edu
On 1/19/15, 11:16 PM, "Jeffrey Brian Downard" wrote:
-----------------------------
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 .
