Re: [] Re: [Inquiry] Pragmata = Objects?

JA = Jon Awbrey
GR = Gary Richmond 

JA: "I'll probably have to take this piece by piece ...

JA: "That first diagram was drawn from Aristotle's text, with an eye, of course, to seeing what overarching continuities could be seen with Peirce's account.  I've probably mentioned before that there is only so much that can be shown in a diagram like that.  If we understand the lone triple that's singled out in the picture as a "prototypical" or a "representative" triple sampled from a genuine sign relation, which is in general a much larger collection of similar triples, then we can probably avoid being misled too far.  But we have to keep the extended aspect of a sign relation constantly in mind, since many of its properties do not descend to the level of single triples, that is, to the level of elemental sign relations of the form (o, s, i).

JA: "So let's pause here and see if we are congruent incidental to that point."

GR: In one sense I'd say that we most certainly are "congruent incidental" to the point that we need to see the single triple sign relation as an abstraction, a formal representation taken from "the extended aspect of a sign relation." We also agree that in even the simplest actual semiosis that "a much larger collection" of triple relations is involved than that given in the single triple of your diagram 1.

GR: However, your diagram 2, having exactly the same structure as diagram 1, but representing now not some abstraction but a real complexus of semioses (as someone's actual experience) is intended to convey that "much larger collection" of triple relations, is it not? Although I think it may be a bit overloaded or overcharged (on your principle that "there is only so much that can be shown in a diagram like that"), yet the (processual) relations you analyze are clear enough--at least to anyone steeped in triadic semiotic. 

GR: [Btw, this is one reason why I must decline David Cox's invitation to produce a FLIPP diagram of our discussion to date. It seems to me--but I might be wrong, in which case I'm sure David will correct me--that it would be difficult to incorporate certain other types of diagrams into a FLIPP diagram as valuable as many in the CG community have found FLIPP diagrams to be, including Simon Polovina as well as myself. There is another kind of diagram observation (of EGs, CGs, your cactus diagrams, and even my trikonic diagrams, etc.) which leads to a different kind of analysis altogether.]

GR: I've attached the gifs of your two diagrams for ready reference. 

Best,

Gary
						
Gary Richmond
Philosophy and Critical Thinking
Speech Communication
Humanities Department
LaGuardia College 
City University of New York


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]