Semiotics (15): Dynamism of Semiosis
How to read and apply the Diagram of 15 Signs
It is easy to come up with nice looking systems, theories and constructions, but it is a completely another thing to be able to apply these theories successfully. Despite their proficiency in developing intricate theories, semioticians are not the best at pitching and applying their ideas.
The application of the Diagram of 15 Signs to concrete things as a tool for thinking isn’t straightforward. Semiosis is a continuous and messy phenomena. It goes all over the place and everywhere, bursting and pulsing, exploding and contracting like a firework show.
Using the diagram takes apart the semiosis for finer analysis, but in taking it apart, the diagram destroys it.
Every attempt to bring this process to a logical diagram will fail at some level. Using the diagram takes apart the semiosis for finer analysis, but in taking it apart, the diagram destroys it. The logical dissection of semiosis kills it.
Therefore, there is always a gap between the real semiosis and our representation of it. I guess the more generally you conceptualize semiosis, the better it retains its living character. The Four Phases would then have more vitality than the 15 Signs, as the semiosis still has some space to live. The more minutely you break it down, the more it loses its vitality.
From now on we enter uncharted waters. If the earlier posts were preliminary and speculative, from now on that is even more the case. I would say that the following is pure speculation and should not be taken as the final word. These are working hypotheses that should be tested by applying the diagram.
Understanding these constraints, let us turn to the Diagram of 15 Signs.
From Linear Thinking to Dynamic Thinking
I’ve had the bad habit of reading the Diagram of 15 Signs too linearly. I always started from the first sign in immediate perception and went through the signs until I ended up in the argument, which is the last sign. This is a linear process that goes through all the signs individually in a predetermined sequence.
However, semiosis is nonlinear and dynamic. There is not only bottom-up movement but also top-down movement. There is constant back and forth, where multiple movements are happening simultaneously. I have already written about this interplay of movements in an earlier post:
In the diagram this dual movement can be thought in the following way:
When something novel [1111] enters into our mind through perception, immediately we apply pre-learned patterns and guiding principles [3333], i.e. our world view, to this novel perception. This starts the semiotic dance where these two movements try to find a balance or a resolution, that is, the resolving of doubt.
There is thus two “combating” forces at play. The first force is a “gravitation” toward the bottom, that is to the sign #5, which is pure 2ndness [2222]. This would be the state of pure shock, utter confusion, a complete state of doubt. Something we wish to avoid as best as we can, as we always like to have some idea of what is happening and some control on the situation.
The other force is a diagonal pull toward to upper right corner of 3rdness, which tries to “explain” the perceptions as instances of some familiar patterns, habits, laws and tendencies. The integration of a instance under a law or a pattern—which is an explanation—produces a relief and resolves tension. It subsumes the novelty (1stness) and shock (2ndness) to be part of a living general tendency (3rdness). It connects multiplicity into oneness and coherence.
We are inherently driven to seek and create meaning. Our very existence thrives on it.
This dance can thus be thought as a game. The player tries to explain and find reasonableness and meaning in every perception that enters the mind. The game is lost, if no explanation or meaning can be found, which results in pure shock and confusion. We are inherently driven to seek and create meaning. Our very existence thrives on it.
The Diagonal Pull
The diagonal pull can be thought as the guiding power of symbols. It “originates” from the upper right corner of 3rdness where the symbols lie. It flows down the triangle towards the other side and tries to lift semiosis to the higher phases.
This pull involves two distinct directions. Firstly, there's the downward flow of analytical inferences, where established patterns are applied to novel phenomena (south-west direction, 3rdness → 2ndness). This would be the guiding power of symbols; the power of symbols to instantiate and have a forceful effect. It is the power of symbols to get thought. We could call this directional force instantiation or guidance.
Secondly, there's the upward integrative direction, where new perceptions and experiences are synthesized into new habits (north-east direction, 2ndness → 3rdness). This would be the growth of symbols where new instances are brought under the law of symbols. It could also be the birth of new symbols through abductions and inductions. This direction could be called ampliative or synthetic force.
The Gravitational Force
The gravitational force is a pull towards the bottom of the triangle (south-east direction, 1stness → 2ndness). This gravitational force can be thought as actualization. It is the tendency for potentiality to actualize.
The opposite force is then dissolution or decomposition, where the sign “deactualizes” by losing its dynamic force (north-west direction, 2ndness → 1stness). I am not sure if semiosis moves to this direction. It may be just an analytical way to inquire how the sign is logically composed. I think this movement is what Peirce calls prescission, where we decompose the sign to its logical parts. Peirce writes:
“Prescission consists in logically supposing a case in which the former idea is present but the latter not so.”
“…Precission, consists in supposing a state of things in which one element is present without the other, the one being logically possible without the other.“
A shock [2222] can be broken down to its indexical power of pointing at something [2221], to its forceful presentation as an individual sign [2211], to its being a perceived qualitative difference and forceful sensation in space-time [2111], to its qualities in themselves [1111].
The Dynamism of the Game
Once again semiosis does not strictly move from one sign to the next. This would be a brutal simplification of semiosis. However, it could be used pedagogically, so its usefulness should be considered, even though we must be conscious of the fact, that in reality semiosis is extremely fluid and continuous, jumping all over the place. Nevertheless, this might be useful:
Novelty flows into the triangle from the upper left corner of 1stness [1111].
It becomes actualized as irritations [2111]. Most of it is subsumed becoming unnoticed qualitative background noise [3111].
Some of it proceeds to actualize as individual occurrences that separate from the background [2211]. Even these are mostly subsumed becoming uninteresting individual objects [3211] that are understood to be instances of some general tendencies by embodying certain conventional or habitual qualities [3311].
But some things have the power to really draw our attention by indicating forcefully some object [2221], but these can be subsumed to be familiar attention grabbing and emotion evoking things [3221] like ringtones, notifications, doorbells and gestures. The sound of the doorbell is understood to signify a guest at the door due to the consistent dynamic and contextual association between the sound and the presence of a visitor [3321]. Furthermore, this contextual dynamic connection (between the door and the doorbell) may become based on a habit (3rdness), which detaches the connection from its dynamic context [3331]. Consequently, hearing the doorbell might evoke thoughts of a guest at the door even though we would hear that sound in a completely different context like in the forest. This habitual association allows for creative use of the doorbell sound in advertisements or artistic expressions [3331], ultimately elevating the doorbell into a symbolic concept in its own right creating the word “doorbell” [3331].
If no explanation can be given, we end up in total shock [2222], which is not pleasant. Most of the time events are recognized and their meaning is clear and expected [3222], as they are habitually conveying information through some medium in some context [3322], which can be shared symbolically through propositions [3332], which are given cohesion, governed and organized by some telos — an argument [3333].
Medical Diagnosis
Let us try another example with more dynamism and movement back and forth. The names of the phases are capitalized.
A patient arrives to the doctor's office Sharing their discomfort and distress [3332]. He recounts a sudden onset of fever, body aches, headache, and cough [3332], as he reflects his Experience of illness [3211].
With a glance at the patient's appearance and demeanor [2211], the doctor begins to perceive subtle clues [2221] amidst the background noise [3111], seeking things [3211] that may point towards something [3221]. The thought of influenza arises as a guiding hypothesis [3332], which is in turn guided by the overarching purpose of healing patients, in adherence to the principles of the Hippocratic oath [3333]. Both of these together Control the doctor's Perception, Experience, and Understanding.
Being guided by the working hypothesis [3332], the doctor knows that influenza conforms to certain typical patterns [3322] like inflammation in the lungs, that can be Experienced as individual symptoms [3222] of influenza. Based on a Controlling diagnostic protocol [3332], which Instructs diagnostic situations like these [3322] the doctor Executes the protocol [3222] by beginning to listen to the lungs of the patient.
Listening intently, the doctor Perceives [2111] an unsettling rattling sound [2211] amidst the expected sounds [3211] and the unnoticed background noise [3111]. He picks up these sounds [2211], recognizes them [3211], as they embody certain sonic qualities [3311]. As the Perceived sound is coming from the lungs [2221], the doctor Experiences this as an instance [3221] of air moving through narrowed airways [3321]. This is a symptom [3222] of influenza, the doctor knows, as he Understands the habitual behaviour of influenza [3322].
Suddenly, a violent cough [2211] of the patient [2221] disrupts the moment, prompting a shock [2222]. Yet, this cough, recognized as an instantiation [3222] of influenzas tendency to cause coughing [3322], only reinforces the underlying working hypothesis [3332]. All of these signs seem to align with the overarching goal of healing the patient [3333].
As the doctor prepares to prescribe medication [3332], the patient Shares a crucial detail - a recent travel to a mosquito-prone region [3332]. This new information causes unease [2211] and concern [3211] as the doctor must re-evaluate the diagnosis [3332]. Maybe the patient has some mosquito-borne illness [3332], thinks the doctor. What about dengue fever [3331]? How does it typically manifest [3311] and what does it look like [3211]?
A laboratory test is ordered [3332], which puts in motion the habitual procedures [3322] in the hospital. The blood test itself is a individual sign reacting to certain antigen [2222], but by understanding its function it becomes a potential sign of the dengue fever [3221]. The doctor knows how to interpret it so it conveys information about its object to the doctor [3222]. The blood test conforms, this is a case [3222] of the underlying dengue fever [3322]. The doubt is resolved.
If the doctor would’ve diagnosed the symptoms as an instance of influenza, dengue fever may have progresses to a severe fever leading to the patient’s death [2222]. That would’ve been an unpleasant surprise. And it would not align with the doctor's goal of healing the patient [3333].
Thank you for reading. As said this post — especially the medical diagnosis example— are preliminary musements about the 15 signs. Take them with a pinch of salt. In the next post, I will apply the 15 Signs to empirical research.
Sincerely,
Markus