Hi Gary, lists, You wrote:
". . . I don't see the point or relevance of Sung's (2) and (3), . " These items are reproduced below within quotation marks for convenience: "(*2*) According to the quark model of the Peircean sign discussed in earlier posts, the 9 types of signs (referred to as the "elementary signs") cannot exist without being parts of the 10 classes of signs (referred to as the "composite signs"), just as quarks cannot exist outside of baryons. (*3*) What holds quarks together within a baryon (e.g., u, u and d quarks in a proton, or u, d and d quarks in a neutron) is the "strong force", so perhaps there exists a 'force' that holds three elementary signs together within a composite sign, and such a postulated 'force' in semiotics may be referred to as the "*semantic force*" or "*semiotic force*", in analogy to the "strong force". " The phenomenon of 3 quarks being *forced* to exist within a baryon is known as the *quark confinement *( http://www.particleadventure.org/quark_confinement.html). It is my understanding that these three quarks can have any of the three 'color charges' labeled red, green, or blue, and only those color charge combinations of quarks that are white (or color-neutral) are found to exist as baryons, each having 3 quarks. For example, there are no 4 quark combinations that are white. The 'force' that compels/allows the 3 quarks to assume any combinations of their color charges so long as the sum of their three color charges is white (or color-neutral) is called the "*strong force*". Another way to describe the "strong force' is in terms of the concept of "*gauge invariance*" [1]: The strong force is color-charge invariant upon the *transformation* of the color charges of individual quarks within a baryon. I applied the concept of gauge invariance to cell metabolism in 1991, concluding that there may exist a new force in nature that acts in the living cell called the "*cell force*" [2, pp. 95-118; 3]. So what if a similar situation holds in semiotics. That is, what if there exists a "force" (which may be called "*semantic force*" or "*semiotic force*"; see (*3*) above) that compels the 3 elementary signs to assume such characters as to make the composite sign of which they are parts *semiotically meaningful.* If this turns out to be the case after further studies, the concept of "*gauge invariance*" may be said to qualitatively apply to semiotics as well: "The *semantic force* keeps a composite sign invariantly meaningful (121015-1) upon gauge transformation of its component signs, just as the strong force keeps the nuclear structure of atoms invariant upon the gauge transformation of the isotopic spin of the nucleons [4]." Physicists have found that the principle of *gauge invariance* applies to electromagnetism, and electroweak, strong and gravitational forces [1]. If the argument presented above turns out to be valid, in principle, it may mean that the same principle of gauge invariance applies to biology and semiotics, thus supporting the postulate that there exists a fifth force in nature, the *cell force* [2, 3], and possibly the sixth force as well, here called the "*semantic or semiotics force*". All the best. Sung References: [1] Jackson, J. D. (2001). Historical roots of gauge invariance. http://arxiv.org/vc/hep-ph/papers/0012/0012061v4.pdf. Retrieved on 12/5/2015. [2] Ji, S. (1991). Biocybernetics: A Machine Theory of Biology,* in* *Molecular Theories of* *Cell Life and Death, *S. Ji (ed.), Rutgers University Press, New Brunswick, pp. 1-237. [3] Ji, S. (2012). *The Cell Force <http://www.conformon.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Excerpt_Cell_Force_Section_12_13_pages_444_448.pdf>*: Microarray Evidence. In: S. Ji, *Molecular Theory of the Living Cell: Concepts, **Molecular Mechanisms, and Biomedical Applications*, Springer, New York, Section 12.13, pp. 444-448. [4] Ji, S. (2012). ibid. See Appendix L for a related discussion in my letter to Professor C. N. Yang. On Tue, Dec 8, 2015 at 4:26 PM, Gary Richmond <gary.richm...@gmail.com> wrote: > List, > > Although I don't see the point or relevance of Sung's (2) and (3), in my > opinion a great deal of semiotic confusion *has* been generated by > confusing and conflating (1) sign types with sign classes. No doubt Peirce > himself contributed to this confusion, although in *some *cases and *in > context* it seems quite logical (and Peirce offers legitimate reasons) to > refer to one of the classes by less than its full triadic name, for > example, 'Qualisign' to refer to the 1st of the 10 classes, the* rhematic > iconic qualisign. *But, again, even this sort of abbreviation has wreaked > a kind of semiotic havoc. (Btw, this is not the only way Peirce contributes > to this confusion.) > > Following a suggestion made by Ben Udell many years ago when I was writing > a paper which, in part, meant to distinguish between these sign types and > classes, I sometimes refer to sign 'types' as 'parameters' as being closer > to Peirce's meaning. > > This is also why I reject Sung's 'quark model' of semiotics, because the 9 > classes are *not* analogous to elementary particles in being 'thing-like' > and quasi-individual, but, again, are the *mere *parameters of the 10 > possible signs which *might *be embodied, that is, the 10 classes. > > There remain a number of scholars who still treat the table of 9 as if > they represented embodied sign classes. They simply do not. > > Best, > > Gary R > > [image: Gary Richmond] > > *Gary Richmond* > *Philosophy and Critical Thinking* > *Communication Studies* > *LaGuardia College of the City University of New York* > *C 745* > *718 482-5690 <718%20482-5690>* > > On Tue, Dec 8, 2015 at 3:39 PM, Sungchul Ji <s...@rci.rutgers.edu> wrote: > >> Clark, Jeff, Gary F, lists, >> >> You wrote: >> >> " . . . On the other hand, some semioticians say that all ten of the >> sign types defined in NDTR, (120815-1) >> including the Qualisign, are genuine Signs. This flags a possible >> ambiguity in the concepts of >> genuine and degenerate; . . . " >> >> (*1*) Shouldn't we distinguish between "sign types" and "sign >> classes"? Peirce defines >> >> (A) 9 sign types (analogous to quarks in particle physics) >> >> 1. qualisign, >> 2. sinsign, >> 3. legisign, >> 4. icon, >> 5. index, >> 6. symbol, >> 7. rheme, >> 8. dicisign, and >> 9. arguement) , and >> >> >> (B) 10 sign classes (analogous to baryons composed of 3 quarks) >> >> 1. rhematic iconic qualisign, >> 2. rhematic iconic sinsign, >> 3. rhematic iconic legisign, >> 4. rhematic indexical sinsign, >> 5. rhematic indexical legisign, >> 6. rhematic symbolic legisign, >> 7 decent indexical sinsign, >> 8. decent indexical legisign, >> 9. decent symbolic legisign >> 10. argument symbolic legisign. >> >> >> Not distinguishing between the 9 types of signs and the 10 classes of >> signs may be akin to physicists not distinguishing between quarks (u, d, c, >> s, t and b quarks) and baryons (protons and neutrons). >> >> (*2*) According to the quark model of the Peircean sign discussed in >> earlier posts, the 9 types of signs (referred to as the "elementary signs") >> cannot exist without being parts of the 10 classes of signs (referred to as >> the "composite signs"), just as quarks cannot exist outside of baryons. >> >> (*3*) What holds quarks together within a baryon (e.g., u, u and d >> quarks in a proton, or u, d and d quarks in a neutron) is the "strong >> force", so perhaps there exists a 'force' that holds three elementary signs >> together within a composite sign, and such a postulated 'force' in >> semiotics may be referred to as the "*semantic force*" or "*semiotic >> force*", in analogy to the "strong force". >> >> All the best. >> >> Sung >> >> >> >> >> >> On Tue, Dec 8, 2015 at 2:43 PM, Clark Goble <cl...@lextek.com> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> > On Dec 3, 2015, at 9:31 AM, g...@gnusystems.ca wrote: >>> > >>> > On the other hand, some semioticians say that all ten of the sign >>> types defined in NDTR, including the Qualisign, are genuine Signs. This >>> flags a possible ambiguity in the concepts of genuine and degenerate; and >>> possibly this problem is related to the concepts of embodiment, just >>> introduced, and of involvement, which is introduced in the next paragraph >>> >>> I think this gets at exactly the ambiguity that is confusing me in many >>> of these discussions of late. It’s also why I ask people to define their >>> terms since I think we’re often using Peirce’s terminology or terminology >>> that seems obvious but which obscure these subtle ambiguities. While I may >>> be wrong, my sense is that it’s precisely upon these subtle issues that our >>> various disagreements are located. >>> >>> All too often I find myself suspicious that we disagree in these more >>> fundamental considerations but unsure due to the way the discussions >>> proceed. >>> >>> I’ve been unable to read the list for about a week and am just catching >>> up. I see that the discussion of the above, or at least the terminology of >>> sign, continues. I just wanted to point out that in addition to these >>> subtle points it seems much of the debate is largely a semantic one over >>> the applicability of certain terms. It’s not clear to me yet that we have a >>> substantial difference in content. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ----------------------------- >>> 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 . >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> 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 >> >> >> ----------------------------- >> 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 . >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > ----------------------------- > 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 > . > > > > > > -- 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
----------------------------- 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 .
