Jon A, List,
Here is one quotation of Pierce cited in Charles Peirce's Guess at the
Riddle (K. Sheriff, Indiana University Press, Bloomington, 1994):
"A sinsign may be index or icon. As index it is 'a sign which would, at
once, (122915-1)
lose the chracter wich makes it a sign if its object were removed, but
would
not lose that character if there were no interpretant."
So it seems to me that (122915-1) establishes the concept of a *dyadic sign*
.
Therefore,
"Not all signs are triadic."
(122915-2)
as some Peirceans on this list seem to believe.
All the best.
Sung
"
On Tue, Dec 29, 2015 at 9:00 AM, Jon Alan Schmidt <jonalanschm...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Sung, List:
>
> Yes, I meant legisign not dicisign. Thanks for the correction.
>
> You asserted that it is "non-Peircean" to think that something non-triadic
> CANNOT be a sign. If this is true, then Peirce's writings must identify
> something non-triadic that CAN be a sign. I asked you to provide such a
> citation.
>
> Regards,
>
> Jon S.
>
> On Tue, Dec 29, 2015 at 6:47 AM, Sungchul Ji <s...@rci.rutgers.edu> wrote:
>
>> Hi Jon,
>>
>> You wrote:
>>
>> "Every sign is either a qualisign, a sinsign, or a dicisign; . . . "
>> (122915-1)
>>
>> Did you mean to say "legisign: instead of "dicisign" ? It is my
>> understanding that "dicisign" is the interpretan of a sinsign.
>>
>> "Please indicate where in Peirce's writings that he EVER defines
>> something (122915-2)
>> that is dyadic or otherwise non-triadic as a "sign."
>>
>> Can you re-phrase (122915-2) ?
>>
>> All the best.
>>
>> Sung
>>
>> On Mon, Dec 28, 2015 at 11:08 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt <
>> jonalanschm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Sung, List:
>>>
>>> The nine terms that you list are not really TYPES of signs; rather, each
>>> one is a label for a single ASPECT of a given sign. Every sign is either a
>>> qualisign, a sinsign, or a dicisign; every sign is either an icon, an
>>> index, or a symbol; and every sign is either a rheme, a dicent, or an
>>> argument. However, any one of these labels is an INCOMPLETE description,
>>> with the exception of qualisign (which entails icon and rheme) and argument
>>> (which entails legisign and symbol); and even those are incomplete once we
>>> start taking additional trichotomies into account.
>>>
>>> Please indicate where in Peirce's writings that he EVER defines
>>> something that is dyadic or otherwise non-triadic as a "sign."
>>>
>>> It seems rather obvious that "reading Peirce extensively does not
>>> GUARANTEE that the reader will come away with a correct understanding of
>>> Peirce," and I doubt that anyone on the List would dispute this. However,
>>> I suspect that reading Peirce extensively does render one MORE LIKELY to
>>> come away with a correct understanding of his thought that reading him only
>>> to a limited extent. Just my opinion, of course.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
>>> Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman
>>> www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
>>>
>>> On Mon, Dec 28, 2015 at 6:22 PM, Sungchul Ji <s...@rci.rutgers.edu>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Edwina,
>>>>
>>>> You wrote:
>>>>
>>>> "Furthermore, the 9 Relations are NOT signs."
>>>> (122815-1)
>>>>
>>>> (*1*) Edwina, as you well know, Peirce gave the following "names" to
>>>> the 9 relations:
>>>>
>>>> 1) quali*sign,*
>>>> 2) sin*sign*,
>>>> 3) legi*sign*.
>>>> 4) icon,
>>>> 5) index,
>>>> 6) symbol,
>>>> 7) rheme,
>>>> 8) dici*sign*, and
>>>> 9) argument.
>>>>
>>>> If these are not "signs" as you claim, do you think Peirce made
>>>> mistakes when he referred to 4 (i.e., 1, 2, 3, and 8) out of the 9
>>>> relations as "signs " ?
>>>>
>>>> (*2*) The problem with your reasoning here, as I can tell, seems to
>>>> be that you think "sign" has always one meaning, i.e., something genuinely
>>>> triadic. So if something is not triadic (e.g., the 9 dyadic relations
>>>> above), that something cannot be a sign. I think such a mode of thinking
>>>> is not only fallacious but also non-Peircean.
>>>>
>>>> (*3*) If my claim that your understanding of the 9 types of signs is
>>>> fallacious turns out to be correct, this may provide , IMHO, an interesting
>>>> lesson and warning for all Peircean scholars:
>>>>
>>>> "Reading Peirce extensively does not guarantee that the
>>>> (122815-2)
>>>> reader will come away with a correct understanding of Peirce."
>>>>
>>>> If (122815-2) proves to be true, upon further critical scrutiny, we may
>>>> be able to identify possible reasons for why this statement may be true.
>>>> One possibility that occurs to me, in analogy to the Heisenberg Uncertainty
>>>> Principle in physics, is something like the following:
>>>>
>>>> "It is impossible to simultaneously determine the object
>>>> (122815-3)
>>>> and the interpretant of a sign with arbitrary precision."
>>>>
>>>> Or,
>>>>
>>>> "The more accurately one can define the object of a sign, the
>>>> (122815-4)
>>>> less accurately can one define its interpretant, and *vice versa*."
>>>>
>>>> If (122815-3) and (122815-4) prove to be valid in the future, we may
>>>> refer to them as the "Peircean uncertainty Principle" (PUP) or the
>>>> "semiotic uncertainty principle" (SUP).
>>>>
>>>> Are there any Peircean experts on this list who knows whether or not
>>>> Peirce discussed any topic in his extensive writings that may be related to
>>>> what is here referred to as PUP or SUP?
>>>>
>>>> One indirect support for the PUP may be provided the by intense debates
>>>> we have witnessed in recent months on this list about the true nature of
>>>> the Peircean sign among the acknowledge leaders of the semiotic community,
>>>> including Gary R, Gary F, Edwina, Jeff, Jon, and others.
>>>>
>>>> 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
>>
>>
--
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 .
