JAS,list I don’t think that you can logically conclude that because I say that I don’t understand Gary R’s vector analysis, that I also don’t understand ‘any application of Peirce’s phaneroscopic categories. Understanding the one does not logically include/exclude the other.
Furthermore - I don’t define the Pericean categories as merely for 1903 ’sign classification’ - but- my outlines of the categories show that they are the basis for his analysis of semiosic and phaneroscopic functionality. And I don’t get your point > The point here is that once phaneroscopic analysis of the genuine triadic > relation of mediating aligns the sign with 1ns, the object with 2ns, and the > interpretant with 3ns, the directionality of the real and continuous process > of semiosis--always from the object through the sign toward the > interpretant--conforms to his vector of determination (2ns→1ns→3ns). How can you do such a thing? Your reliance on ’phaneroscopic analysis’ as the utltimate authority doesn’t provide enough information for such an assertion - which nullifies the functionality of the categories. You have a view of the categories which seems, to me, ungrounded in his writings. Would you provide me with his outline where he writes that a triad with a DO correlate in 2ns produces a Representamen in 1ns and Interpretants operative in 3ns? I am aware of your previous temporal analysis. You say that it is ‘different but equally valid’ - and I continue to disagree with such a conclusion. Edwina > On Jun 18, 2025, at 10:38 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Edwina, List: > > ET: I’m afraid I still don’t understand Gary R’s vectors and so won’t comment > on them. I have read them many times..and don’t ‘get’ them’. > > I appreciate the honest admission. Evidently, the same is true for any > application of Peirce's phaneroscopic categories--even where it is fully > consistent with his own writings--other than your own narrow conception of > them as "categorical modes" for sign classification, primarily employing his > 1903 taxonomy. > > ET: I don’t agree with your positing - first - that the Interpretants are > operative in the categorical mode of Thirdness. - I note that of the ten > classes only ONE class has the Interpretants in Thirdness. In the other NINE > classes, the Interpretant is either in a mode of Secondness or Firstness. > > I am not positing any such thing. I am not talking about a "categorical mode" > in which the interpretants are "operative." I am not talking about sign > classification. Again, I am talking about a completely different but equally > valid application of Peirce's phaneroscopic categories. > > ET: I totally disagree with Gary R’s, as you outline it - ‘vector of > determination’ …with its direct aligning the semiosic data movement of > Object->Representamen->Interpretant..with the categorical movement of > 2ns->1ns->3ns… > > So much for not commenting on Gary R.'s vectors. The point here is that once > phaneroscopic analysis of the genuine triadic relation of mediating aligns > the sign with 1ns, the object with 2ns, and the interpretant with 3ns, the > directionality of the real and continuous process of semiosis--always from > the object through the sign toward the interpretant--conforms to his vector > of determination (2ns→1ns→3ns). > > ET: As I’ve pointed out, this is informationally and cognitively illogical. A > representamen operating within the categorical mode of Firstness [quality, > feeling, emotion] doesn’t have the cognitive content to produce a generality, > a rule, a law [Thirdness]. > > Again, that is not what I am talking about at all. Again, I agree that a > qualisign (sign itself is possible/1ns) cannot be an argument (sign's > relation with its final interpretant is necessitant/3ns). > > ET: I don’t know that one can so readily also align the categories with a > separate temporal framework. > > I have discussed this on the List before and in my paper on "Temporal > Synechism" (https://rdcu.be/b9xVm)--just as the object (2ns) determines the > sign (1ns) to determine the interpretant (3ns), the accomplished past (2ns) > determines the nascent present (1ns) to determine the contingent future > (3ns). This is yet another completely different but equally valid application > of Peirce's phaneroscopic categories, fully consistent with his own writings. > > Regards, > > Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA > Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian > www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt > <http://www.linkedin.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt> / twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt > <http://twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt> > On Wed, Jun 18, 2025 at 5:36 PM Edwina Taborsky <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> Jon, List >> >> 1] I’m afraid I still don’t understand Gary R’s vectors and so won’t comment >> on them. I have read them many times..and don’t ‘get’ them’. >> >> 2]. The quotation you refer to refers only to the modal nature of Thirdness >> - either in its pure/genuine form [3-3] or operative within Secondness [3-2] >> or operative within Firstness [3-1]. This has nothing to do with the >> Interpretants. >> >> Therefore - I don’t agree with your positing - first - that the >> Interpretants are operative in the categorical mode of Thirdness. - I note >> that of the ten classes only ONE class has the Interpretants in Thirdness. >> In the other NINE classes, the Interpretant is either in a mode of >> Secondness or Firstness. >> >> 3]By the way- I note that in most Signs [ understand the capitalized Sign >> as the irreducible triad of Object-Representamen-Interpretant] …there is not >> always a Final Interpretant…But , and however.. I totally disagree with Gary >> R’s, as you outline it - ‘vector of determination’ …with its direct aligning >> the semiosic data movement of Object->Representamen->Interpretant..with the >> categorical movement of 2ns->1ns->3ns… >> >> As I’ve pointed out, this is informationally and cognitively illogical. A >> represent amen operating within the categorical mode of Firstness [ quality, >> feeling, emotion] doesn’t have the cognitive content to produce a >> generality, a rule, a law [ Tjhirdness]. >> >> And such a path [2ns-1ns-3ns] certainly isn’t found in the Peircean ten or >> other classes!! >> >> Also- I don’t know that one can so readily also align the categories with a >> separate temporal framework. I can understand Firstness, certainly, as >> ‘present time’, and Secondness, with its differentiation of this’ from >> that..enables, history and the past..but these differentiations can also >> occur in the Present. [Secondness contains Firstness anyway]. As for >> Thirdness - I see it as continuity rather than Future..but..I don’t think >> this is the real problem..which remains, as I see it - the confusion. >> between ordinal movement [ First,Second, Third] with the categorical modes. >> >> Adn as I’ve said - I see TWO movements : >> 1] the data movement…where data moves fromthe Dynamic Object..through the >> mediative Representamen..to result in the Interpretant;and >> >> 2] The Cognitive movement…where data is picked up by the receptor >> Representamen from the external world [Dynamic Object]…and is processed by >> this Representamen..to produce the Interpretant. Teh Cognitive moment >> begins,[1] therefore with the REpresentamen,which is the cognitive agency >> in the triad….and its gathers data froth Object [2] to [3] produce teh >> Interpretant. This an ordinal process… >> >> Edwina > _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ > ARISBE: THE PEIRCE GATEWAY is now at > https://cspeirce.com and, just as well, at > https://www.cspeirce.com . It'll take a while to repair / update all the > links! > ► PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON > PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to [email protected] . > ► To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message NOT to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] with > UNSUBSCRIBE PEIRCE-L in the SUBJECT LINE of the message and nothing in the > body. More at https://list.iu.edu/sympa/help/user-signoff.html . > ► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary Richmond; and > co-managed by him and Ben Udell.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ARISBE: THE PEIRCE GATEWAY is now at https://cspeirce.com and, just as well, at https://www.cspeirce.com . It'll take a while to repair / update all the links! ► PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to [email protected] . ► To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message NOT to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] with UNSUBSCRIBE PEIRCE-L in the SUBJECT LINE of the message and nothing in the body. More at https://list.iu.edu/sympa/help/user-signoff.html . ► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary Richmond; and co-managed by him and Ben Udell.
