Jon Alan wrote: "*As for the dynamical/immediate objects being genuine/degenerate, and the final/dynamical/immediate interpretants being genuine/degenerate/doubly degenerate, what other basis would you suggest for establishing that there are exactly two objects and three interpretants? Is it just a coincidence that they precisely match up with Robert's podium diagram?"*
You ask a good question here, but you give the wrong answer. In fact, the answer can only be the one that allowed the triadic signs to be classified, i.e., their possible *natures*, given their ordering in 3 < 2 < 1. The two objects and the three interpretants result from a more detailed analysis based on observation, which distinguishes the collective object (agreed upon by the community) from the particular object (which determines the particular object formed by one of its members), each with its own valid complexity; the sign remains the medium in the chain. The interpretant that it determined in the triadic model is analyzed again in three successive stages or moments: the first impressions of an interpreter (is it, *for him,* at first glance, an object governed by a law, or only an identifiable object, or even a vague, unanalyzable feeling); secondly, the real effect on his psyche, which he experiences simply by perceiving it; it can impose either the law, if that is the case, or an identified object, or an impression (think of the Impressionists who tried to capture this moment); or finally, the practical consequences of the case that has imposed itself on his mind, which will affect his future behavior in a world now populated, for him, by the object he has ultimately chosen. And his choice, if it differs from the one that is collectively in use, may eventually contribute to changing the collective world, but only very slightly. However, it may be that, combined with others, certain changes in the collective will occur (for example, lexical variations in languages, entries and deletions in dictionaries). This is exactly what Peirce explains in the following famous example: *"What sort of a day is it?" This is a sign, whose Object, as expressed, is the weather at that time, but whose Dynamical Object is the impression which I have presumably derived from peeping between the window-curtains. Whose Interpretant, as expressed, is the quality of the weather, but whose Dynamical Interpretant, is my answering her question. But beyond that, there is a third Interpretant. The Immediate Interpretant is what the Question expresses, all that it immediately expresses, which I have imperfectly restated above. The Dynamical Interpretant is the actual effect that it has upon me, its interpreter. But the Significance of it, the Ultimate, or Final, Interpretant is her purpose in asking it, what effect its answer will have as to her **plans for the ensuing day. I reply, let us suppose: "It is a stormy day." Here is another sign. Its Immediate Object is the notion of the present weather so far as this is common to her mind and mine -- not the character of it, but the identity of it. The Dynamical Object is the identity of the actual or Real meteorological conditions at the moment. The Immediate Interpretant is the schema in her imagination, i.e. the vague Image or what there is in common to the different Images of a stormy day. The Dynamical Interpretant is the disappointment or whatever actual effect it at once has upon her. The Final Interpretant is the sum of the Lessons of the reply, Moral, Scientific, etc." *(CP 8.314) There is no question of degenerate categories of any kind. Each element selected is likely to have one of three natures, the ordering of which is subject to the rules of successive determinations. Moreover, it is impossible for these to be degenerate categories, since the latter are not categories, but only partitions into 1, 2, or 3 parts of the extension of each category's concept (the sets of Primans, Secundans, or Tertians). This can be seen clearly in the podium diagram with, respectively, a circle with two circular crowns, a circle and a circular crown, and a single circle. The coincidence you see is purely formal and does not match when you look closely. Moreover, it is foreign to Peirce's own conceptions. Regards, Robert Marty Honorary Professor ; PhD Mathematics ; PhD Philosophy fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Marty *https://martyrobert.academia.edu/ <https://martyrobert.academia.edu/>* Le mer. 25 juin 2025 à 04:04, Jon Alan Schmidt <[email protected]> a écrit : > Edwina, List: > > I expect Robert to correct me promptly and publicly if I am the one > misreading his paper, and I hope that he will do likewise if you are the > one misreading his paper. However, it is his prerogative to let our > arguments stand on their own, if that is his preference. > > You said earlier, "the first correlate, is the simplest, because it > determines all three." I pointed out that this is incorrect--the first > correlate (sign) *only *determines the third correlate (interpretant), > while the second correlate (object) determines the first correlate (sign). > Again, *these *are what Robert refers to as "two determinations" in > section 2.3, quoting EP 2:391 (1906) and bolding the key phrases. He indeed > discusses *a priori* and *a posteriori* throughout the paper, but not as > "two determinations." > > In Peirce's 1903 speculative grammar, the sign does not *determine *the > object, and the object does not *determine *the interpretant. As Robert > notes, he did not start using the term "determines" in this way until 1905. > Moreover, the second and third trichotomies are not for the object *itself > *and the interpretant *itself*, they are for the sign's *relation *to its > (dynamical) object and the sign's *relation *to its (final) interpretant. > The sign *logically constrains* the sign-object relation, which *logically > constrains* the sign-interpretant relation; that is why the three > trichotomies yield ten sign classes instead of 27. > > As for one sign having two objects and three interpretants, I ask > again--if not genuine, genuine/degenerate, and genuine/degenerate/doubly > degenerate in accordance with Peirce's phaneroscopic categories, what other > basis would you suggest for establishing that there are exactly these six > correlates? Is it just a coincidence that they precisely match up with > Robert's podium diagram? And I repeat, for the umpteenth time--this has > nothing to do with the fact that *all *the correlates and their external > relations have *their own* trichotomies of "categorical modes" > (1ns/2ns/3ns) or universes (possible/existent/necessitant). > > Regards, > > Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA > Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian > www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt / twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt > > On Tue, Jun 24, 2025 at 6:03 PM Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> JAS, list >> >> I think it's up to Robert Marty to inform me if I am misreading his >> paper. Not you. >> >> 1] Nor am I saying that his ’two determinations’ are ’the sign >> determining both of the other two correlates'. I am referring to his clear >> outline of an a priori determination and an a posteriori determination. You >> seem to ignore this analysis. >> >> These are as he outlines: >> - a priori : This is a cognitive movement, involving Mind or Quasi Mind >> from the First correlate [ the Sign/Representamen] becoming activated..to >> interact with the Object [ which is providing the data stimulus which the >> Mind picks up]..and moving on to arrive at the Meaning, the Interpretant. >> This is the cognitive processing from S/R->O->I. >> >> - a posteriori- this is the informational movement of data from the >> Object via the mediating Sign/Representamen, to the Interpretant. This is >> strictly about the movement and transformation of data from O->R/S-I. >> >> You are ignoring this analysis of TWO determinations - a priori and a >> posteriori. >> >> 2] Your opinion that there is a genuine object and a degenerate object >> has no basis, as far as I know, in any of Peirce’s work. The terms >> ‘genuine’ and ‘degenerate’ are used by Peirce to refer to the categorical >> modes, where, for example, there is a pure quantitative Secondness [2-2] >> Secondness operating totally within reactive brute force; this is defined >> as ‘genuine’. And a *qualitative* Secondness [2-1] which is Secondness >> operating within the ambiguity and lack of measurable clarity found in >> Firstness. The same can be found within Thirdness [ 3-3, which is genuine >> abstract generality] and 3-2 [ which is a degenerate generality of >> indexical connection] and 3-1 which is a double degenerate generality of >> iconic generality. . >> >> I totally disagree with your moving this account of the categories, in >> their genuine and degenerate modes, into defining the three Interpretants. >> After all- your doing so denies the fact that the full set of Interpretants >> can be in any one of the categorical modes..And certainly, the S/R can >> function in any of these three modes of Thirdness! >> >> 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.
