SUO: Re: Semiotics Formalization

[Jon Awbrey <jawbrey@oakland.edu>]

¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤

| Charles Sanders Peirce
| is "the deepest investigator
| of the gasoline of the signs" ...

Partly for our interest in its subject matter and
partly for our interest in automatic transduction,
I am enclosing here this "robot redaction" of the
Preface to Robert Marty's "L'Algebre des Signes".

http://www.univ-perp.fr/see/rch/lts/marty/
http://www.univ-perp.fr/see/rch/lts/marty/anglais.htm
http://www.univ-perp.fr/see/rch/lts/marty/access.htm
http://www.univ-perp.fr/see/rch/lts/marty/listepub.htm
http://www.univ-perp.fr/see/rch/lts/marty/tab-mat.html
http://www.univ-perp.fr/see/rch/lts/marty/avprop.htm

I normally take either one of the following translators as my guides,
but when Babel Fish started off with that "bon motor city" rendition
above, well, you know I was sorely tempted, but eventually decided
to go with the "Voila!" interpreter instead.

http://babel.altavista.com/raging/translate.dyn
http://trans.voila.fr

Many Engardes,

Jon Awbrey

¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~CITATION~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤

BEFORE - COMMENT

Charles Sanders Peirce is "the most profound investigator
of The essence of the signs", such is R. Jakobson's opinion
on him (it, her) American semiotician;  René Thom qualifies
his classification of Signs of "simple and deep" and he is not
author who in The front pages of a general presentation of her
(it) Semiotics dedicates some lines to the "big precursor".
The denominator common to all these references in Peirce, it
is this sort of implicit gratitude (recognition) of a body Of
doctrine identified under the name of "semiotics peircienne".
Now a superficial exam, even limited to Peirce's papers More
widely being spread (diffused), as Collected Papers, watch
That such a body of doctrine does not exist really in these
Texts and, if one spreads (widens) the exam to the manuscripts
among which the set (group) Being microfilmé, without the
correspondence, occupies thirty two Rollers of hundred metres
each, one is literally shocked That such an assertion can be
supported, unless Reduce this body of doctrine to some lines
including one Definition of the signs (and already the choice
of this definition would be Problem as show him (it) unquestionably
the appendix A of This work and the reading of the section 3 of its
first chapter) And the famous classification of the signs in icons,
the indications (or Index) and symbols, universally recognized, the
being whole Being wrapped (surrounded) in some vague references to
the phanéroscopie And in the fundamental categories.  Finally it
is most of Time through the presentations whom (that) gave it some
Exegetes, notably Charles Morris, that semiotics Peircienne is
practically used.  It (he) is not in my Intentions to assess these
presentations and of it Clock (point, stick) the differences, the
oppositions even the incoherence.  At first because it would be
a considerable work and of little Of interest;  then and especially,
because the confusion which reigns Is completely normal given the
state of Peirce's work, Unfinished monument, so to speak a sort
of equivalent in The thought of the Sagrada Familia de Gaudi in
Barcelona there Architecture.  Teresa Calvet de Magalhaes in the
small book (197l) dedicated to the categories puts in motto what
Peirce Thought himself (itself) of the work in l903 (Peirce died
there 1914 and wrote intensely until 1911):  "All whom (that) you
can find of printed matter of my works Of logic will be simple
emergences scattered here and there Of a rich vein which remains
not published.  Most, me him (it, her) Suppose, lay in writing;
but no human being not Could collect the fragments of it.  I can not
make (do) him (it) Myself."  It is so to say that any presentation of
semiotics Peircienne engage (open) only his (her) author and that the
question of one Some orthodoxy would not know how to settle(arise).
That is why I have Being subtitled my work:  "Attempt of scientific
semiotics, Of aprés Charles Sanders Peirce" to indicate that if Peirce's
works are at the origin of my reflection my papers Engage (open) by no
means the thought and that of possible critics not Should set themselves
it that to me, even if I took a care Constant to underline, every time
it seemed to me evident (But can being I did make a mistake?) how much
the development of My model married the guiding main lines of the thought
Of Peirce.  That one does not see in these quotations an use Excessive
(unfair) of the argument of authority, but simply the desire To justify
the subtitle and not to deceive the reader.  My main objective is so to
produce a statement most Clearly, the most rigorous and the most coherent
possible of a theory Semiotics elaborated from the mass of Peirce's papers
In a "determinedly scientific" perspective.  This last one Term is obviously,
otherwise to prove, at least to clarify, But previously it is advisable to
say that number of attempts This way were made (done) with uneven success
that it (he) not Belongs to me not to estimate.  It is the scientific
community acting as authority Unique (only) of practical evaluation
which operates the sortings by promoting The theories adequate to the
real objects which they claim Describe and by plunging the others into
the neglect.  This "justice Immanent" work very fortunately with procedures
Constants of call (appeal) and appeal which make (do) that nothing is ever
Totally thrown back or forgotten (rejected or forgotten) and what certain
exclusions give Place sometimes in spectacular rehabilitations, as The
history of the sciences shows him (it) at leisure.  It (he) is clear
however That the existence of my project presupposes that nobody of
Past attempts is satisfactory for me.  G. Mounin (1970) underlines
that "the most sensitive gap, in Historic point of view and can be
theoretical is the absence Of a good study on C.S. Peirce" and Jakobson
evokes "In the daytime when one will decide to study seriously the theory
of Peirce's signs".  Considering the state in which Present the papers
this task is almost impossible and not Can be achieved without working
again the concepts and them Organization, without adding it the other
necessary concepts To fill a lack, assure (insure) a transition, without
there Integrate some of the recent experiences of the human sciences,
Exact sciences and the épistémologique reflection.  To work again Do not
inevitably mean transforming or deforming (but Even in this respect there
are obviously no taboos:  yes The requirement of coherence, for example
implied one Considerable transformation or an importing distance one does
not see it Who could forbid to make (do) him (it), the intellectual honesty
Consisting then simply in indicating them and in exposing (explaining) it
Reasons). It will be a question so for the main part of clarifying in one
Formalized model, to clarify, even to prolong the aspects of The thought
of Peirce considered the most interesting by proving, As much as possible,
the choices which will be operated.  The example of Some 76 definitions
of the sign raised (found) in manuscripts Is exemplary in this respect.
Many authors are Satisfied with choosing the definition which agreed best
in them Project what amounted to establish one of the momentary aspects
And even escaped (fleeting) of the thought of Peirce and to leave after
all To the readers the care of bringing the necessary clarifications.
One Project so defined exposes (explains) obviously to undergo the
criticisms Symmetric of the orthodoxes (although no orthodoxy is Feasible)
and lax persons who confuse (merge) metaphor and speech Scientist.  It is
the risk inherent to any company of it Type. This risk which Peirce, moreover,
invites us to run (roam) "The researcher should try hard not to be influenced
by her (it) Tradition, the authority, the reasons which would carry (wear) to
suppose him (it) What the facts should be, or by fanciful ideas of However
kind (genre) it is;  he should be held it in the observation Honest and
stubborn of the appearances.  The reader, from his part, Should repeat
for him even the observations of the author and Decide by melting itself
on the own observations if Description of the appearances which gives the
author is correct or No." (1-287 (1))  If the reader takes the text above
literally (and which Author does not wish to have such readers!) it (he)
will be confronted According to the state of information in mathematics,
with them Universaux mathematics that the empirical observation of Phenomena
of meaning and the formal analysis of texts Semiotics of Peirce led (drove)
me irresistibly to adopt.  Their definition and their use require nobody
Mathematical knowledge other than those that are Being demonstrated in
the class (course) of the text.  That is that I use No result and so
that the report between the phenomena of Meaning which I study and the
mathematics is not one Report of application but a report of constitution.
Difficulty for the reader can result from the incapacity of sound The
previous experience (experiment) of the objects of the algebra, that is
the sound Habit to seize formal objects and to combine (organize) them.
That it (he) is Being persuaded that the choice of the theory of the
algebraic categories and Foncteurs do not result from a desire of
sophistication but Of a particularly made a success equivalence
the thought of enters The modern algebraic thought Peirce and.
The theory of Categories authorized big clarifications in them
Mathematics; it is allowed to think that she can produce Services
at least equivalent in the human sciences, in The measure where
the structuralist thought, by establishing the superiority Of the
relation on the element, the way to the formalisms of opened The
algebra homologique in the human sciences.  My step (method) wants
"scientist" in a sense who aims Today to become commonplace in the
human sciences and which Express himself in the implemented (operated)
methodology:  the observation "Abstractive" which (who) consists in
abstracting of given empirical Essential characters of the observable
(the main things, that is Characters without which they would not be
what they are) Is got in touch with organized set (group) universaux
Mathematics.  This stake in report is of type fonctoriel, That is that
when essential characters of Observable seem bound (connected) in the
observation (for example When two or some of them are simultaneously
Presents or in a constant relation of causality Temporal), the chosen
mathematical universaux Corresponding to each of them should maintain
also one Formal relation clarifies formulated in mathematical terms.
The notion of algebraic category which allows to seize beings Mathematics
at the same moment by their structure, and by the relations That these
structures maintain among them morphismes ) and Notion of foncteur which
puts in correspondence the structures Objects and for every couple of
objects the relations that their Structures maintain, appear a priori
as Fundamental notions on which such a methodology The justification
should find its foundations and.  They lead (drive) In a conception
sharply holistique of the epistemology of Human sciences.  The object
of knowledge is not the element Whose essential characters determine
the membership in her (it) The element classifies observable but as
it (he) participates Of a whole, as it is the place of solidarities
with the others Elements would be what by sharing with them certain
of these Essential characters.  The necessity of seizing so Observable
was often felt;  but most of the time The employment(use) of universaux
mathematics of type ensembliste has Being led (driven) to separate the
process of formalization of the structure (Their "essence" ) of that of
her (it) "interns" elements Formalization of the relations which they
maintain with the others Elements (their "existence" ).  This methodology,
articulated there Two different moments, imposes a suspension of the first
one Moment to approach the second, what has for result Of autonomiser the
elaboration of the structure interns elements Of that of the totality
whom (that) they establish (constitute).  She (it) translates finally
An individualistic conception of the epistemology which opens Way, in
the human sciences, in the psychologisme and in Solipsism.  To avoid
these stumbling blocks it is necessary to seize with the same Movement
of thought the element and the totality in which it The internal structure
of one belongs, that is to formalize Element in its relations with the
structures of the others Elements provided with the same structure so
that the elaboration Of this structure is the result of a dialectical
interaction Between the part (party) and the whole.  The formalisms of
the algebra Being homologique are, it seems to me, the instruments of one
such "Integrated" epistemology.  It is clear furthermore that (than) one
can not To study the phenomena of meaning as one studies Gravity or the
magnetism.  These have a character of Reality which is imperative itself
at once, in the sense(direction) where the check That the phenomenon does
not depend the spirit of the observer is Almost immediate.  The phenomena
of meaning Imply the observer as essential element of Phenomenon that
is as necessary element, without which This last one would not happen.
It will so be necessary to elaborate one Phénoménologie private individual
capable of seizing the difference (I The name of phénoménologie of second
intention proposes) and Giving the means to make sure of the reality of
objects Being treated (manipulated) and of their relations.  This obligation
implies The integration in the model of a sociology of the knowledge With
whom (which) the institutional analysis supplied me foundations.  If one
Does not want to autonomiser the knowing subject, in the same way That one
was careful not to autonomiser the object of knowledge of his (its, her)
Relations with the other objects, it is necessary to consider him (it) too
In the relations with the other subjects.  They are institutions Being taken
in a very wide sense (direction), which (who) settle (adjust) these relations
and it is So the dialectisé concept of institution which will avoid towards
(as for) Subject the stumbling block which one wants to avoid towards (as for)
the object.  The program implicitly defined in the lines which Precede could
not be only begun if Complexity of the structures associated to the perception
of objects Realities and in their presence in the spirit could not be reduced
for three Big categories of elements the combination (overall) of which allows
of Reconstruct at the same moment the structures and the relations that they
Maintain.  This possibility is purely formal:  she (it) Result from a theorem
which applies to universaux Mathematics chosen.  She (it) recuts and melts
definitively Peirce's intuition.  It (he) was at his (its, her) time taxed of
"triadomanie" And there are many those that see in him a neurotic Obsessional,
a maniac of the figure three.  Peirce had not Of the other obsession than that
of the truth.  One wanted also to make (do) of Peirce an inveterate taxonomist.
Certainly Many results express themselves in the form of taxonomies Phenomena.
However, I was able to show, grace (favour) Exactly in the employment (use)
of notions derived of those of Algebraic category and of foncteur that it
was a question less of Taxonomy that of architectonics, that one could
complicate Almost at leisure the model by refining him (it) up to the
degree Necessities to produce a satisfactory description and Operating
of the semiotic phenomena.  Furthermore, those that Persist or pretend to
take Peirce for a taxonomist Ignore inevitably the analysis of the semiosis
and Notably the theory of the interprétants which allows to begin A description
of the process of elaboration of the meanings As well in the peculiarity of the
subject and the moment as in The universality of the "semiotic community" and
the temporality Appropriate (clean) of a sémio-cultural universe.  I made
observe, as often as possible, that the succés Universal of the division of
the signs in icon, indication, symbol He (it, she) should have drawn more
strongly the attention of the researchers on System of thought which had
produced her (it) in particular on one Exam sharply more detailed and more
vast, on behalf of The scientific community, three categories Fundamental
phanéroscopiques. I am confidentially convinced That they are the bad
accessibility to Peirce's work, The absence of convincing clarification
and especially the absurd Compartimentation of the disciplines in
"scientists" and "Arts teachers" (which (who) tends fortunately
to be reduced) who are Responsible for this vague incredulity which
welcomes generally This observation.  The idea which seems to prevail
is more or less That of a fortuitous coincidence, a happy meeting enters
A misty and unfinished system of thought and some Empirical generalizations.
On the contrary I believe that there is Place to follow and to develop ways
indicated by Peirce Towards what one can call the triadique "thought" among
whom (which, what) Reports(connections) with the "dialectical thought" are
implicitly Being evoked in this work thanks to the annexation of the concept
Of institution in the formal model.  Asking the question of Interpreting him
(it) logic and noticing its impotence in him (it, her) To resolve into terms
others than intuitive, Peirce wrote there l906:  "My excuse for not supplying
a scientific answer in This question is that I am, as far as I know , a pioneer
Or rather a land-clearer of forests, in the task to loosen (kick away) and To
open roads in what I call semiotics, That is the doctrine of the essential
nature and the variety show (varieties) Fundamental of sémiosis possible;
and I find that Field is too vast and the too heavy work for the first
one That I am which (who) gets down to this task.  I am consequently
Being obliged to limit me to the most important questions.  Of These
questions of the same particular type as those in that I answered by
basing me on an impression (printing), and which (who) have in Few
near the same importance, there is more four hundred, And they are
quite delicate and difficult, each requiring A lot of search (research)
and a lot of caution." (5-488)  One will admire the precision of the
comment ("more four hundred").  Rare are those that undertook in the
opened roads By this pioneer, at least as regards semiotics, While the
philosophic papers aroused a big Quantity of works.  It is necessary to
pursue the metaphor and to say That, neglected, these roads were invaded
of Weed and of brambles?  And that the task is always So heavy to find
them at first, to loosen (kick away) them and of them Prolong in these
directions (managements) that he indicated to us then?  There is another
question than one can not evade and than I have Indirectly evoked higher,
it is that of the meaning The lot (fate) was made (done) for Peirce's works,
even manhandled by The publishing (edition) and by the scientific community.
Because one can not Assert that they were forgotten, as are it the theories
Superficial or insignificant, nor refuted as it is Frequent in the case of
formalized theories.  In a way or Of the other one the thought of Peirce
always haunted the town Scientist.  At the moment or some present the
theory of Disasters as new one paradigm in the sciences Human one
should wonder on semiotics percienne, on her (it) Place which it
occupied and which it occupies face to face the others Paradigms
because, as the paper T.S. Kuhn (1982):  Rival followers of paradigms
never get Completely none of the parties wanting to admit all them Not
empirical suppositions which the other one needs to produce Valid the
point of view.  It means that peircien, always present paradigm since
A century resisted in the closed field or are in confrontation Paradigms
in the succession (advent) of the theories of the meaning By-products of
the conceptions of Saussure and Hjelmslev.  Because it (he) It is about
an opposition, is possible be less radical moreover than Countered there,
enters binarisme and triadicité.  I write "less radical That it (he) adorned
there "because from a triadique point of view, one can Consider the binarisme
as a degenerate shape of her (it) Being triadicité, what one can see throughout
this work.  The binarisme would have left bound (connected) with a certain
Structuralist dominant ideology?  It adorned to be the opinion of R. Barthes
(1965) when, wondering about the binarisme he writes:  "In fact, and to
end briefly on the binarisme, one Can wonder if it is not there about
a classification in her (it) Necessary and passing time:  the binarisme
would be too one Metalanguage, a particular taxonomy intended to be
Being taken by the history, a just moment of which it will have been
"The difference between the approaches binary and triadique in everything
Project of description of a some region of the reality is Considerable.
One can notice it in some studies Collected in the last chapter which (who)
try hard to show Which could be a triadique approach in fields As different
as the théâtrologie, the epistemology, the ideology, The ethnométhodologie.
A field would deserve to him only a complete work:  it is The approach
triadique linguistic phenomena so badly Being understood (included) and so
badly judged, notably by Benveniste.  Semiotics peircienne is a transverse
science.  Or discipline, Or method, she (it) occupiesface to face human
sciences The same position as the logic face to face mathematics.  Semiotic,
says Peirce, is another name of the logic.  She(it) Allows to rest (pose)
differently, in terms directly Operating the fundamental problems of every
discipline Human sciences by the consideration "of nature" of The implication
of the researcher in each of its objects. One can conclude that, for reasons
which have been Being clarified, semiotics peircienne was not subjected in
Social validation by the scientific community, fault of Present in the state
that usually requires this Validation.  This work not claimed to was able
to present her (it) under Its canonical shape and the judgment of the reader
would not know Apply to Peirce through this presentation.  If the doubt Or
the contesting seize its spirit I would not too much know Undertake him (it)
to see by himself (itself), in Peirce's work, Reasons for reforming the judgment.
It (he) will find there certainly A thought of a wealth such as my presentation,
by her(it) Force of the things very personal, will appear to him (her), in him
(it, her) Better of the cases, than the partial image and can be deformed Of
a science of the meanings virtually present in them Peirce's papers and the
extension of which exceeds widely the algebra Which (who) is here sketched it.

¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~NOITATIC~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤

P.S.

Have A Happy Beethoven's Birthday, Everybody!

J.A.

¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤