Gary F, list, GF: [Bellucci's] book is not a polemic and does not try to “prove” that the dicisign is the only sign class that has an immediate object. If you pay close attention to what Peirce wrote about the immediate object in 1904-8, setting aside any prejudices you may have about what the immediate object of a sign is, you will see that there is no need to “prove” or disprove any such thing. But if you read Bellucci polemically, as if he were taking one side in the debate that you and Jon seem to be engulfed in, then you will surely miss his point (and Peirce’s), just as you’ve missed the point of my posts over the past few days.
Gary, while Bellucci's book "is not a polemic and does not try to 'prove' that he dicisign is the only sign class that has an immediate object," *you* have stated that it is. It seems to me that Bellucci's work and your thinking on the matter have been quite valuable in stimulating thought concerning the dicisign as well as the immediate object. I don't think that I or Jon (or any of the list members who have participated in this thread) are "engulfed" in anything, and to suggest that we have "prejudices" in the matter is, well, untoward. Perhaps it is you who has prejudices. It may be that we have missed the point of your recent posts, but to say that we have missed Peirce's point, as you remark above, would suggest that your reading of Peirce's late work is correct and that our not acknowledging that is the problem. I don't see that I am prejudiced in this matter whatsoever and rather have been trying to see your (and Bellucci's) point as best I can. What more can I do in good faith? GF: My attempts to clear up misunderstandings having only led to more misunderstandings, I think it’s time for me to drop them and get back to reading Peirce, as I still have many open questions to ponder about what he was trying to do in 1903-08. My apologies for wasting your time in this thread. You have hardly wasted mine or anyone's time--quite the contrary. You have stimulated the thinking of Jon S, Jeff D, Edwina, Helmut, me, and others. You have several times now said that you wish to drop out of the discussion and, while I had hoped you wouldn't, that is your decision to make. But to suggest that this discussion has been a waste of time, that we just aren't "getting" what Peirce "was trying to do in 1903-08" but that you (and Bellucci) are, well to say that is indeed to end constructive dialogue in the matter (which seems quasi-settled in your mind despite your need to "get back to reading Peirce. . .to ponder about what he was trying to do in 1903-08"). If your "attempts to clear up misunderstandings" has "only led to more misunderstandings," then unless the failure is *all* on *our* part (and, recall, Jon has read the entire Bellucci book and has stated that he admires it and has learned a great deal from it; I have read only Chapter 8, but that seems to contain the principal argumentation re: the matter being discussed), then perhaps it *is* best for you to "get back to reading Peirce" in the interest of your "many open questions" about his late work in semeiotic. Meanwhile, I'd like to thank you for your beginning this thread given the thinking it has provoked in several (perhaps many) here, and hope that your continued reading of Peirce will lead you to an even stronger explication of his late semeiotic. Best, Gary R *Gary Richmond* *Philosophy and Critical Thinking* *Communication Studies* *LaGuardia College of the City University of New York* *718 482-5690* On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 7:08 AM, <g...@gnusystems.ca> wrote: > Gary R, you wrote: > > Although I've clearly stated that I agree with you, Bellucci, and > Stjernfel, that the dicisign is perhaps of particular importance in > semiosis, I think that valorizing it by claiming that it is the only sign > class that has an immediate object needs to be proved. You suggest that it > has been so proved by Bellucci in his book. > > What I’ve said, more than once, is that Bellucci’s book follows the > development of Peirce’s speculative grammar in chronological order, with > very generous quotations from his manuscripts along the way and very astute > commentary on them; and that part of his Chapter 8 deals with the emergence > of the “immediate object” in that context. The question In that section “is > the question of what on earth the immediate object of a sign is” (Bellucci > p. 291). The book is not a polemic and does not try to “prove” that the > dicisign is the only sign class that has an immediate object. If you pay > close attention to what Peirce wrote about the immediate object in 1904-8, > setting aside any prejudices you may have about what the immediate object > of a sign is, you will see that there is no need to “prove” or disprove any > such thing. But if you read Bellucci polemically, as if he were taking one > side in the debate that you and Jon seem to be engulfed in, then you will > surely miss his point (and Peirce’s), just as you’ve missed the point of my > posts over the past few days. > > My attempts to clear up misunderstandings having only led to more > misunderstandings, I think it’s time for me to drop them and get back to > reading Peirce, as I still have many open questions to ponder about what he > was trying to do in 1903-08. My apologies for wasting your time in this > thread. > > Gary F. > > > > *From:* Gary Richmond <gary.richm...@gmail.com> > *Sent:* 24-Jun-18 19:09 > > Gary F, list, > > GF: The point about a rheme is that it is not interpreted as being really > affected by its object, but only “understood as representing such and > such a kind of possible Object.” Give it an actual object by making it a > part of a dicisign, and it will afford the *depth* component of the > information conveyed by that dicisign. But in the absence of some part of > the sign indicating what that information is *about*, it can’t be > interpreted as informational. > > Again, as I just wrote in response to Edwina, information about an Object > "emerges"--it is not given completely even when, as you seem to be > suggesting, a rheme is made part of a dicisign. Hardly. Perhaps it is even > then quite unclear as to the information the rheme or, for that matter, the > proposition, holds, and it may take the stringing of any number of > propositions into arguments to get at the significant information. Although > I've clearly stated that I agree with you, Bellucci, and Stjernfel, that > the dicisign is perhaps of particular importance in semiosis, I think that > valorizing it by claiming that it is the only sign class that has an > immediate object needs to be proved. You suggest that it has been so proved > by Bellucci in his book. I am not yet so convinced. > > … > > > ----------------------------- > 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 .
