Gary R., lists,
I just noticed further discussion of semiotic determination in the fifth
or so paragraph in the linked section in
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sign_%28semiotics%29#Triadic_signs
This paragraph was my rewrite of a paragraph that explained signs in
terms of Peirce's article "What Is a Sign?" in which Peirce included an
account of the categories in terms of states of mind.
The various quotes from Nattiez in the article's Peirce section were
already there. I'm unfamiliar with Nattiez.
Best, Ben
On 1/29/2015 11:40 AM, Benjamin Udell wrote:
Gary R., lists,
Thanks, Gary.
The discussion of semiotic determination at the Wikipedia Peirce
article were originally written by others including Jon Awbrey and
then edited by me. I've shown the URLs in the links in the footnotes
so that they'll be accessible in the I.U. archive.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Sanders_Peirce#Sign_relation
/Determination./ A sign depends on its object in such a way as to
represent its object — the object enables and, in a sense,
determines the sign. A physically causal sense of this stands out
when a sign consists in an indicative reaction. The interpretant
depends likewise on both the sign and the object — an object
determines a sign to determine an interpretant. But this
determination is not a succession of dyadic events, like a row of
toppling dominoes; sign determination is triadic. For example, an
interpretant does not merely represent something which represented
an object; instead an interpretant represents something /as/ a
sign representing the object. The object (be it a quality or fact
or law or even fictional) determines the sign to an interpretant
through one's collateral experience^[125] with the object, in
which the object is found or from which it is recalled, as when a
sign consists in a chance semblance of an absent object. Peirce
used the word "determine" not in a strictly deterministic sense,
but in a sense of "specializes," /bestimmt / ,^[126] involving
variable amount, like an influence.^[127] Peirce came to define
representation and interpretation in terms of (triadic)
determination.^[128] The object determines the sign to determine
another sign — the interpretant — to be related to the object /as
the sign is related to the object/ , hence the interpretant,
fulfilling its function as sign of the object, determines a
further interpretant sign. The process is logically structured to
perpetuate itself, and is definitive of sign, object, and
interpretant in general.^[127]
125 ^ /a b/ See pp. 404–9 in "Pragmatism" in EP 2. Ten quotes on
collateral experience from Peirce provided by Joseph Ransdell can
be viewed here <http://lyris.ttu.edu/read/messages?id=57101>
http://lyris.ttu.edu/read/messages?id=57101 at peirce-l's Lyris
archive. Note: Ransdell's quotes from CP 8.178–9 are also in EP
2:493–4, which gives their date as 1909; and his quote from CP
8.183 is also in EP 2:495–6, which gives its date as 1909.
126 ^ Peirce, letter to William James, dated 1909, see EP 2:492.
127 ^ /a b c/ See "76 definitions of the sign by C.S.Peirce
<http://perso.numericable.fr/robert.marty/semiotique/76defeng.htm>
" http://perso.numericable.fr/robert.marty/semiotique/76defeng.htm
, collected by Robert Marty (U. of Perpignan, France).
128 ^ Peirce, A Letter to Lady Welby (1908), /Semiotic and
Significs <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Sanders_Peirce#SS>
/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Sanders_Peirce#SS , pp. 80–1:
I define a Sign as anything which is so determined by
something else, called its Object, and so determines an effect
upon a person, which effect I call its Interpretant, that the
latter is thereby mediately determined by the former. My
insertion of "upon a person" is a sop to Cerberus, because I
despair of making my own broader conception understood.
End quote.
Somewhat longer version here. Additional lines at end were originally
in the Peirce article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semiotic_elements_and_classes_of_signs#Sign_relation
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semiotic_elements_and_classes_of_signs#Sign_relation>
Also some discussion in the third paragraph of the linked section in:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representation_%28arts%29#Semiotics_and_logic
Also in the third paragraph of the linked section in:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sign_%28semiotics%29#Triadic_signs
this paragraph's final line was by somebody else.
Best, Ben
On 1/28/2015 5:40 PM, Gary Richmond wrote:
Ben, lists,
Ben wrote:
In the case of object, sign, interpretant, insofar as the object
determines the sign to determine the interpretant to be
determined by the object as the sign is determined by the object,
the order of semiotic determination is 'object, sign,
interpretant', although object, sign, interpretant are not to be
understood as acting like successive falling dominoes.
Well, and succinctly stated.
One also, I suppose, ought in this connection rehearse Peirce's use
of the concept of determination, which is, of course, not physical
determination. It's a topic which has been discussed on peirce-l on
a number of occasions, but I don't recall if you've written about
semiotic determination in any of your Wikipedia articles, Ben. If so,
would you
Best,
Gary
*Gary Richmond
Philosophy and Critical Thinking
Communication Studies
LaGuardia College of the City University of New York
C 745
718 482-5690*
On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 12:07 PM, Benjamin Udell wrote:
Jeff, Jon, lists,
I think that all that is required for an ordered triple, or an
ordering of any length, is a rough notion of 'more' or 'less', for
example an ordering of personal preferences, and this is enough for
theorems, for example
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow%27s_impossibility_theorem . Exact
quantities are not required. In the case of object, sign,
interpretant, insofar as the object determines the sign to determine
the interpretant to be determined by the object as the sign is
determined by the object, the order of semiotic determination is
'object, sign, interpretant', although object, sign, interpretant
are not to be understood as acting like successive falling dominoes.
Best, Ben
On 1/27/2015 2:08 PM, Jeffrey Brian Downard wrote:
[....]
Here is the starting question: Doesn't the notion of an ordered
triple require that we already have things sorted out in such a way
that we are able to ascribe quantitative values to each subject
that is a correlate of the triadic relation?
[....]
-----------------------------
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 .
