8^th AIS/IASS Congress

Université Lyon 2, Lyon 7^th - 12^th July 2004

SIGNS OF THE WORLD: INTERCULTURALITY AND GLOBALIZATION

Sessions on theoretical semiotics and epistemology

Abstract: diagrammatic theorizing

Do New Information and Communication Technologies (N.I.C.T.) require semiotics to invent special methods or procedures for analysis and interpretation? Probably, but we must not forget that new techniques may give new life to age old methods or procedures, nor must we forget that within the scope of old communication techniques new methods may be possible.
In this paper I will argue that

New Information and Communication Technologies make the re-use possible of techniques that were developed in the Art of Memory tradition. It is possible in this way to strengthen the recollection and orientation function of the brain, while at the same time adding to the social usability of the techniques.
Processes of sign design are very apt for the evaluation and further development of Peircean classifications of signs. This is due to the fact that the decisions that designers make are a habitual expression of the grammatical rules that semiotics tries to explicate.

Meanwhile, a diagrammatic expression of a Peircean sign classification will be presented, shortcomings will be indicated with the help of two stages of a design process and different strategies for improvement will be proposed.

Auke van Breemen

Preface

For purposes of scholarly reference numbers are included in brackets and placed right.
A balance between print and screen delivery is aimed at. By putting the main text and not click able versions of the diagrams in one HTML-file print of the main argument is made possible. The notes are in linked pop-up windows, they need separate print commands.
A word of thank goes to Mercis for the use of drawings by Dick Bruna, to Francine Oomen for her kind permission to use her drawings, to Hans Brandt, Léon Stolk and other people of Total Identity for their permission to use images and for their kind cooperation with the analysis being made and to Sjaak Paridaens of Teach and Text for his continued technical support.
A special word of thank goes to Claudio Guerri, without his stimulating comment this paper would have been different.

Version 1, July 2004

Diagrammatic Theorizing:

discussion on form is discussion of content

Auke J.J. van Breemen
abreemen at semiosis.net

1 Introduction

[1]

Since Peirce's conception of the domain that is covered by semiotics is very broad, including inorganic sign processes ⁿ, all we find in our perceptual fieldⁿ and all objects capable of functioning as signs, no matter whether they are designed to function as sign or not, it is wise policy to specify somehow the kind of signs treated in this paper. But let us first take a look at the kind of business semiotics has with signs. Semiotics, according to Peirce, aims at developing a:

general theory of all possible kinds of signs, their modes of signification, of denotation, and of information; and their whole behavior and properties, so far as these are not accidental. MS 634:14 [1909] in Bergman, 2004, p.36

A quick glance at the radically different kinds of signs, hinted at above, will be enough to realize that although we aim at a general theory, we will use different methods to realize that end. That is, we need methods suited for the kind of sign we investigate. So, my primary task will be to specify what kind of signs I analyze in order to contribute to a general theory and what method I will use.

[2]

In this paper I will deal with signs that are meant to function as signs in the visual realm, that is, I will use signs that are designed. This of course does not mean that the meaning of those signs is completely controlled; many occasions will occur in which those signs convey unintended meanings. But it does mean that I will concentrate on the intended meaning. For this enables me to entertain the hypothesis that on the average the decisions that designers make when designing a sign are the habitual expression of the grammatical rules that semiotics tries to uncover. The decisions being visible in the transition from one version of the design to the other. My approach may be succinctly stated thus:

Given that design processes exist that consist of a brief, several intermediary signs and a final sign.

It is to be expected that on the average every next sign in the chain
- better expresses the goal formulated in the brief,
- and/or expresses that goal in a more well formed, a more true or a more effective way.
Also to be expected is that
- if we have a perfect semiotic theory with a perfect tool on which the subsequent signs in the chain can be scored,
- then every not-accidental difference between one sign and the next will be made visible by that tool since the score on those aspects and probably on those aspects only will be different.
But, since we have to rely on an incomplete, although promising theory and an indeterminate tool, i.e. several incomplete Peircean sign classifications, we better reverse the procedure by going
- to score signs and especially differences between signs taken from design processes on the classifications,
- to look for changes that we do not regard accidental but that cannot be scored on the classifications,
- to adapt the classifications accordingly, preferably in line with theory,
- and if needed refine the theory.

[3]

Before results of this approach can be shown some intermediary steps need to be taken in the next paragraphs. In order to give already now some idea of what will be done, I end this introduction with an informal treatment of some exemplary signs that may make probable that designers habitually show mastery of rules that semiotics tries to uncover and which at the same time shows that the distinction between accidental and not-accidental differences is far from easy.

[4]

Let us start with some work of Dick Bruna, see the image below. It shows part of a puzzle for small, still illiterate children. If the pieces are separate we have a collection of questions or urges for completion. By putting the pieces correctly together sentences are made that state the equivalence between a word and a picture. Since the words are in a language that most of us do not master, we are in the same position as the children Bruna designed the pieces for. But with one exception, we know that picture and word correspond, children learn that there are strange non figurative entities that enable grown ups to speak words that are normally associated with animals and the pictures of animals. But apart from that, those that do not master the language are in pretty much the same situation as the children. So, what are the tools we get to complete the sentences if the words do not work? Differences in background color, animal color, fit of the parts of the animal picture and form of the jigsaw lips are sufficient to complete all sentences. In that and in the result, the equivalence statement made, they all are of the same type. The differences between the statements in color, in form and in animal pictured and named, most of us will regard as accidental, maybe with the exception of the plural by Giraffes.

Illustrations Dick Bruna, © copyright Mercis bv, 1953-2004	The letterpress is uniform in these drawings. The objects are of the same type The exception to the rule being the Giraffes with which the plural is introduced.

[5]

If we regard the puzzle by Bruna as the first lesson in image-word combinations, then a small book by Francine Oomen delivers the next; see the images of the first four page's below and imagine to be a child that just learned the Bruna lesson. The first page sets off where Bruna ended, i.e. with a statement of equivalence between an image and a word. Still we are not inclined to say that the Bruna signs are of the same type as the first Oomen page. Where Bruna designed a graphical helpsystem to assist in connecting word and image Oomen decided to delegate that task to parents talking with children. And since she already decided on parental assistance of the young, she could afford adding some vivid elements. Here we will easily agree upon a real or not-accidental difference that must be accounted for in the theory.

[6]

But what about the relation between the first and the next pages? A quick glance reveals that the pages are pretty much the same since the form of the page, the bee, the drawing style and the tone of the colors are recurring features. More careful inspection however learns that there are also non-trivial differences between the pages:

Bloem is a letterpress by the drawing of a flower which is a discrete type of object. Gras is a letterpress by the drawing of grass which is a non-discrete type of object.	Drawings by Francine Oomen, Bijtje Bzzz in de tuin, 1997. Page 1 and 2
Drawings by Francine Oomen, Bijtje Bzzz in de tuin, 1997. Page 3 and 4	Zon is an inscription in a drawing of the sun, a discrete type of object. What kind of caption is wind and by what type of object?

Are we going to value these differences as accidental or not? The second page with grass on it will be dealt with automatically as a consequence of the decision on the plural Giraffes by Bruna. Maybe we decide on differences according to quantity, i.e. singular, plural and indeterminate. The third and the fourth pages however pose questions of their own. It is not only the difference between a letterpress and an inscription we are dealing with, that is to say, it is not only a matter of the placement of word and image. If we take a closer look at page three we see that the cloud with the bee on it introduces not only an extra element in comparison with the pages one and two. The cloud with the bee on it is responsible for a shift in primary meaning. Here the focus is on the bee taking a sunbath. The equivalence statement is only part of that message and maybe the shift from a letterpress to an inscription is made in order to prevent ambiguity. But then the difference is not accidental. Does this mean that whether something is accidental may depend on the composition of the sign? That must mean there are rules that govern the binding of the parts of a composite sign, rules that must be accounted for in theory.

[7]

It would be very easy to expand this informal treatment of first reading materials, but I hope to have made sufficient clear that those simple pages may be governed by complex rules that demand many distinctions to be made. And indeed, the attempts of Peirce to make a

general theory of all possible kinds of signs, their modes of signification, of denotation, and of information; and their whole behavior and properties, so far as these are not accidental. MS 634:14 [1909] in Bergman, 2004, p.36

show that a classification of all possible types of signs is very demanding in regard of distinctions needed. His best known, small classification consisting of three trichotomies accounts for 27 signtypes of which 10 are really possible. His rarely studied, extended classification consists of 10 trichotomies enabling 59049 signtypes of which only a part is really possible.

2 The Art of Memoryⁿ

[8]

The small Peircean sign-classification I used in teaching Art students, see the table right below, is well known. According to taste the first and the third rows and columns may be exchanged. It is nice to ponder the question whether the effects of such an exchange on the meaning can be explained by the table itself. If not either the difference is only accidental or this would be the first sign of a need to make a more extensive classification.

	Possible	Existent	Lawful
Representamen or sign in itself	Qualisign	Sinsign	Legisign
Relation representamen - object	Icon	Index	Symbol
Relation representamen - interpretant	Rheme	Proposition	Argument

Small Peircean sign-classification

[9]

This classification is suited to organize the aspects that have to be considered if a sign is being analyzed. Its main advantage being that you can say to students: If you analyze a sign make sure that you have a score on every row, otherwise the analysis is incomplete. But there are also serious disadvantages connected to this way of presenting things. One of them being that the triadic character of a sign easily is lost. An other that the types of objects and interpretants that are addressed by the sign are out of sight, which results not only in incompleteness but also in a very static impression. At first it did not feel as a problem concerning research since reading could compensate the deficits. It started as a problem in teaching art students; the results being meager and enthusiasm not as abundant as wished. So, how to improve presentation?

[10]

In The Art of Memory Francis Yates describes the tradition of memory techniques from Simonides of Ceos in Ancient times until its gradual disappearance in the seventeenth century. The technique was common due to scarcity of books. A often used strategy to remember a manuscript was to imagine a building with several rooms; for every chapter a room. In every room you had to imagine sculptures or paintings, the characteristics of which were to be connected with the topics, dealt with in the chapters, through association. In this way the person, when in need of knowledge from a certain manuscript, had only to recall the right building, then go to the right room and take a look in order to recall what the manuscript had on the subject. This of course was a very personal technique since everybody had access only to his own memory.

[11]

The most interesting part of the history of memory techniques deals with the advent of the printing press; since it formed the occasion for several experiments that aimed at an objectification of the memory technique, not all of them in print. A notable example is the Memory Theater of Ciulio Camillo. It was never finished but according to a reconstruction by Francis Yatesⁿ the plan was to make a small theater in which all that is known could get a place. In the theater the seats were to be replaced by seven rows of seven statues each, making forty-nine statues in total. Each statue modelled to represent a main branch of human knowledge. And each statue housing several drawers at meaningful places in which text ought to be stored that deals with the subject indicated by the stautue and the placement of the drawer in the statue. Thus, Camillo promised that a person standing on the stage would in one glance have at his disposal all that is known in a meaningful, organized way.

Schematic representation of Ciulio Camillo's Memory Theater, reconstruction by Francis Yates

The reader will agree that the sketch Yates made is a very weak substitute of the original plan by Camillo. Nowadays we can use more advanced techniques to mimic the Camillo approach. With the computer at hand it is possible to make a diagram of meaningfully related concepts. Texts may be attached to the concepts, concepts that on the click of a mouse reveal their content. It is noteworthy that nowadays the scope is more restricted - a model of a theory instead of all knowledge of the world - and that the language used is less metaphoric: form, color, position and direction taking the place of the sun, pyramids and Apollo as meaningful elements.

[12]

But the reader will also agree, I think, that Camillo's theater is more about organization of knowledge, chunking and enlargement of working memory with the help of clever representational devices, than about recollection and long term memory. The Camillo part proved as an unexpected side effect very fruitful for research, but formed only part of the solution for the educational problem. The other part had to come from Murner, who made a card game for teaching logic in 1506 and published a book about it in 1509. The goal of the game was to enable students to memorize for later use the Summulae logicales written by Petrus Hispanus around 1230. Let us take a look at the gameⁿ.

[13]

Below you see two cards of the stock of 51 that were made to cover the logic of Petrus Hispanus. Murner designed a recurring image for every chapter and added for every subject dealt with a symbol to the image.

Scene: The scene is the recurring. The scene indicates the subject of the chapter and the paragraph dealt with: the woman figure = chapter fallacies riding a deer = first, main paragraphs the hat(s) = indicate the order of cards, which is also the order of the paragraphs. Action: The action is the variable. The variable is associatively connected with what is said about the subject. Right the elements are: the knife the head the sealed paper the pair of antlers the single horn	Tomas Murner, 1506

Tomas Murner, 1506	Let us take a closer look at the action of the card to the leftⁿ. It is about faulty definitions pencil writes on tongue = too many words in the definition mirror reflecting face = two causes confused or given crown = definition is not according the normal order of the five predicabilia: genus, species, differentia, proprium and accident. laughing dog = dogs cannot laugh according to Aristotle, so: a from the start refuted definition not found = an untrue definition donkey ears = a definition such that opposition is impossible not found = a trivial definition slate = children learn to write on a slate, so: an ellipsis, i.e. either words are missing or a sudden shift of topic in the definition

As part of the training that Murner gave his students they had to play the game and memorize the cards. If later the students needed some logical knowledge, they only had to recollect the image of the appropriate card and read the signs.

[14]

If for teaching purposes a diagram is made, it is possible to mimic the scene - action setup of Murner's cardgame. See for an example the second diagram below that gives the analysis of a sentence. The scene consists in the basic structure of the diagram, the action is triggered by putting a sign just next to the diagram and by coloring the concepts that give the analysis of the added sign with a signal color. On top of this the clickable text can be replaced by an explanation that states why the sign scores as it does. Experience learns that after a while the students do not need the diagram itself, it is enough to point to the position where the relevant concepts are located. If later they are confronted with the need to analyze a sign they may recall the diagram and cycle trough the meaningful places, for instance bottom right = kinds of objects; bottom middle = relation between sign and object, etc.

[15]

3 Diagrammatic Representation of Peircean Semiotics

The construction of the basic scene is not very difficult. We take one of the sign definitions Peirce gave, for example this one:

A Sign, or Representamen, is a First which stands in such a genuine triadic relation to a Second, called its Object, as to be capable of determining a Third, called its Interpretant, to assume the same triadic relation to its Object in which it stands itself to the same Object. Peirce CP 2.274, 1902/03

Then we construct the well known basic triangle and fill in the triads from the table given above. Finally we search the InteLex edition of the Collected Papers for object and for interpretant, sort out the hits and try to make a meaningful arrangement, see just belowⁿ.

smallscheme

A screenshot of the received view: except for the interpretants on which no consensus has been reached. In HTML and in Axon format a more Camillio like presentation is possible.

The same diagram in clickable HTML

The same diagram in Axon format, windows required

The Axon program is free for viewing: http://web.singnet.com.sg/~axon2000/download.htm

[16]

Now that the scene is set, the different kinds of actions may be modeled in the spirit of Murner's cards. We may as a start take the weather question discussed by Peirce in CP 8.314, and make a score for the initial question by his wife on the diagram by coloring the appropriate bars yellow. See below.

A screenshot of the score of a sentence

With the ten sign types in mind that Peirce deems possible on the base of the small sign classification, we would end up with ten different diagrams, for each possible sign type one, see CP 2.254 - 2264. The more elaborate taxonomies, for instance the 10-fold classification from the Welby correspondence, would of course yield more diagrams. But before we jump to that it is wise to dwell a little upon the small diagram and see what the different kinds of objects and interpretants, that are made visible in the diagram, add to a strictly tabular analysis. In order to do so let us look at a diagram in which the transition from one sign to another is being visualized. As is done below in a very sketchy manner with the same example from Peirce just to make some points.

A screenshot of the score for interpretants in a sequence of sentences In Axon format

[17]

The points I want to make now are:

When we look at individual signs in order to give them their place in a sign classification by scoring them on the 3*3 table, then we regard signs to be accidentally different if they score the same in the table. We can of course argue that the table is not elaborate enough, that we have to add distinctions. Sure, but suppose we do add them. Does that mean that there will be a moment that the score on the table is enough to determine whether two signs differ accidentally or not? Or is also a different score on the different interpretants and the objects a good reason to call a sign not-accidentally different?
If we analyze a sign sequence we can look at the sequence as if we are dealing with a complex argument that consists of premises and conclusion, the premises in their turn may be arguments themselves. The processes involved are very complex and the steps in the analysis are not formalized, so in order to keep track of what we are discussing it is necessary to find a way to represent our analysis.
Suppose that we always are able to delineate an argument for analysis correctly. Even then, we will find that in many cases the analysis in terms of sign types will be less interesting, then the discussion of objects addressed and interpretants generated. This is due to the fact that most arguments will be constructed according to rules that tend to equalize the form of the propositions that together make up the argument. A look at the rules for definitions next to the Murner cards above will make this point probable. So, if we want to learn something we better take a look at arguments and propositions in the making by artists, illustrators, graphical designers, web designers and the like. For only then we will find an abundance of terms, propositions and arguments that did not make it in the final product because they did not fit. The reasons behind the judgement misfit being very informative for anyone interested in developing a semiotic theory.

[18]

In the final part of this paper I will try to show that the last remark above, if taken seriously, leads to interesting results. In order to do that I will start with the description of a design proces, concentrate on some interesting points and finally confront this design process with the theory.

N.B. Note that with a slight change in background color it is possible to distinguish between discussing the theory and using the theory in making an analysis of a sign.

[19]

4 The Global Group Design-process

Léon Stolk from the company Total Identity was responsible for designing a relational gift and a trademark for a company by the name of Global Group. The Global Group was founded when ideas of New Economy held sway, now it is fused with an other company. But then it promised the people that could afford it, to save much money from treats of governments by the application of complicated international law on a global scale. The gift had to be related to the product of the company, the service offered. After making a general description of the goals, two ideas were developed and in embryonic form realized by Léon Stolk of which the Global Group had one to choose one for further development. One idea consisted of a gold coin, made according to the rules of the trade with the Global Group as mint-master. The other idea consisted of a banknote. The idea for a banknote won. After that the main decisions were discussed with the client until the design was finished. I shall only deal with the relational gift.

[20]

Below you see two stages of the design process. To the left you see the first banknote that has all ingredients of the final gift. To the right you see all ingredients at their final spot. There are two intermediary versions. In versions before the left the story still was in the make and in versions after the right the final technical realization was on its way. The claim is that the right version better expresses the goals as formulated in the general desciption than the left. The most efficient way to argue that is telling the story of the right banknote first and afterwards to describe the differences between the left and the right. I will concentrate on the main lines, the story is very detailed.

[21]

It is a banknote. At the left you see Hermes, the Greek god of Trade. To the right, a little bit more to the fore, you see Justitia, goddess of Justice. In between a flower, symbolizing the gain of the client that needs protection by the firm. The flower has as its background a globe with a grid of coordinates. This real earth, were the work is done, is small and placed low in comparison with the much bigger gridless globe. The continents on the top globe are displaced in order to strengthen the opposition between the real world in which the money was earned and were it is in need of protection and the ideal world that has to be visited for imaginative dealing with everyday affairs. Both worlds being subject to the ticking of time, symbolized by the planetary movement in the left top-corner, and the ideal of growth, symbolized by the snail in te right top corner. The year 2000 connects past, work of the client, with future, responsibility of the global group. The variable serial number enhances the exclusivity of the gift by making it unique, more personal. This promise is tied to the company by the name Global Group that very mundane is placed at the bottom. This anchors the story to the world, transforming an idea to a statement about how things are. Skipping details, I will only add that the Dutch Ministry of Finance ordered that the banknote had to be placed in a plastic cover in order to prevent misuse due to its real looks.

[22]

For a test of the small sign diagram the question what the differences are between the former and the later version, has to be dealt with. I only name the differences that I use:

The clock in the left top corner is being made less literal.
Hermes and Justitia changed place.
the global grid of coordinates is removed from the top globe and the continents are mixed up.

Design by Léon Stolk,
Total Identity, 1999

Design by Léon Stolk,
Total Identity, 1999

[23]

Two questions may be asked concerning the changes:

Is there a difference between both banknotes in the score of the three differences mentioned above on the 3*3 classification or in the small diagram?
Is there a difference in meaning, in the quality of the composition of the sign(s) or in the way we are addressed?

No, there are no differences in the score on the diagram. Both the clocks and both the globes will score as a rhematic, symbolic-iconic replica sinsign. We cannot distinguish grades of literalness or universes of discourse with the theory as we have to in the case of the clock and the globe. And for the inversion of position, left - right as well as back - front, is no provision, so it will go unnoticed. It may be argued that for instance the clock has at once a dual sign-function the one pointing to time and the other to a specific discourse on time and that the two work together in generating interpretants for the reader. But also then the question remains whether this type of distinction must be recognized or not. The differences certainly do not belong to the type of accidental differences.

[24]

I would argue that:

the dual inversion of Hermes and Justitia has consequences for the meaning of the note, the past gain and future protection being more clear in the last version of the story,
the change with the clock has more effect on the quality of the composition and on what G. Frege would call Kraft than on the story told,
the removal of the grid from the top globe in combination with the reshuffling of continents emphasizes the difference between real and ideal, but of the three dfferences it tends to be the most marginal.

So, the conclusion must be that the small classification is insufficient, but how to proceed?

[25]

5 At the Borders of the Received View; how to proceed?

After 1900 Peirce devoted serious thought to his semiotics. Thought that went in different ways beyond the ten sign types classification. Most of it is not yet accessible. I will briefly introduce three different strategies for a further development of the received view. I start with the most clearly Peircean and end with the least. It is not clear to me at the moment if the three proposals can be combined and if so, how to do it. The first attempt I deal with is the famous proposal in the Welby correspondence with ten trichotomies. The second one is based on subdivisions one can find in the Collected Papers. Take for example the different kinds of arguments and propositions or different kinds of indexicality and iconicity. The last one is based on the idea of habit.

The classification according to the Welby correspondence

[26]

This scheme is being outlined in the correspondence Peirce had with Lady Welby. The published material is not enough to make sense of it. Demanding of explanation are lots of relational terms. Also the different aspects of the interpretant are in need of further research. The first step could be to try to make a concordance between the terms used in the small scheme and the terms used in the Welby letters, to search manuscripts and to experiment with examples. It could be that some of the trichotomies form subdivisions of others. If so, that would be a natural step to the next approach.

The classification according to discussion of sub-divisions of sign aspects

[27]

At several places in the Collected Papers one can find discussions of terms that may lead to branching of relational terms. The change of the clock from literal to more symbolic can be understood as an operation on a designator in order to ensure that two designators point to the same universe. We still do not have a grip on the changing places of Hermes and Justitia. Maybe in order to account for that we have to look at the habits that govern our reading.

The classification with a supposed influence of habit on all three trichotomies

[26]

The habits are of influence on the way the sign itself is seen, the way in which the sign is seen to relate to its objects and the perceived ways in which new interpretants are being generated. This approach resulted from an argument in my Diagrammatic signs, electronic media and Semiotics.
It could be very rewarding to find out that the diagrams can be connected with the Nonagons developed by Claudio Guerri, since in certain respects the latter seems to work with a diapositive approach. It is possible that this would involve a reformulation of the concept logical space, i.e. [A or B] supposes the truth table of A and B, but only gives a cut of that table, a reformulation, in short, very similar, also in motive, to the change from Rheme, Proposition and Argument to Seme, Pheme and Delome, i.e. a step away from natural language as the model of thinking.

[27]

I am not sure what the results will be of a continued confrontation of design processes with semiotic theory, but I am convinced that it will be rewarding to use the confrontation in order to improve our diagrammatic representations of basic classifications and of sequences of signs.

Literature

Bergman, M 2004	Fields of Signification; Explorations in Charles S. Peirce's Theory of Signs Philosophical Studies from the University of Helsinki 6
Breemen, A.J.J. van 2000	Diagrammatic signs, Electronic media and Semiotics http://www.teachtext.net/semiotiek/theorie/engelsdiagram/eoverall.html
Murner, T 1967(1509)	Logica Memorativa Miland Publishers, Nieuwkoop
Peirce, Ch, S 1992	Collected Papers, Database InteLex Corporation
Ransdell, J 1979	The Epistemic Function Of Iconicity In Perception Peirce Studies 1 pp. 51-66, Lubbock, Texas, USA retrieved from: http://members.door.net/arisbe/menu/library/aboutcsp/aboutcsp.htm
Stoffers, M. & Thijs, P 1996	A question of mentality: the changed appreciation of Thomas Murner's Logical Card Game (1507) in: Memory & Oblivion Proceedings of the XXIXth International Congress of the History of Art
Yates, F 1966	The Art of Memory The University of Chicago Press

8th AIS/IASS Congress

SIGNS OF THE WORLD: INTERCULTURALITY AND GLOBALIZATION

Sessions on theoretical semiotics and epistemology

Abstract: diagrammatic theorizing

Diagrammatic Theorizing:

discussion on form is discussion of content

1 Introduction

2 The Art of Memoryn

3 Diagrammatic Representation of Peircean Semiotics

4 The Global Group Design-process

5 At the Borders of the Received View; how to proceed?

Literature

8^th AIS/IASS Congress

2 The Art of Memoryⁿ