Gary F, Jon S, List, Maybe I should stay out of this discussion at this point, this suggested by the fact that I'm getting confused by the dialague Gary F and Jon S are currently having. I hope it's just some terminological confusion, since these issues under discussion once seemed fairly simple and, even, obvious to me.
But surely, the most obvious thing, as Gary F reminds us, is that Peirce *always* says that the Object determines the Sign for the Interpretant and, as I see it, this is so even when Peirce notes that the Object stands in the same relation to the Interpretant as the Sign does. Indeed, I don't at all think that this changes even when Peirce introduces the IO/DO dichotomy, for the DO, he notes (in a diagram I can't quickly locate), determines the IO, which determines the R, which determins the I. I found that I couldn't contradict any of the several points Gary F enumerated. So, I am hoping that this gets cleared up quickly as the present confusion is making me feel queasy. Best, Gary R [image: Gary Richmond] *Gary Richmond* *Philosophy and Critical Thinking* *Communication Studies* *LaGuardia College of the City University of New York* *C 745* *718 482-5690* On Sun, Apr 16, 2017 at 4:06 PM, <g...@gnusystems.ca> wrote: > Jon, briefly, I don’t see that “the Sign determines the Sign-Object > relation,” and I don’t see where Peirce says that it does. What Peirce > usually says in his definitions is that the Object determines the Sign to > determine the Interpretant. (This does get more complicated when he > introduces the dichotomy between Immediate and Dynamic Objects, but this is > not mentioned in NDTR.) > > > > There are many variations, such as the beginning of “Speculative Grammar” > (EP2:272), where he says that “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.” But I have yet to see anyplace > where Peirce says or implies that the Sign *determines the Sign-Object > relation*. If you can cite such a place, please do so. And that goes > double for your claim that “the Sign-Object relation determines how the > Interpretant represents the Sign.” In my view, that is determined by > whether the Sign is an Argument, a Dicisign or a Rheme. But again, I’m > happy to be corrected if you can show that I’m wrong by citing a Peirce > text. > > > > Gary f. > > > > *From:* Jon Alan Schmidt [mailto:jonalanschm...@gmail.com] > *Sent:* 16-Apr-17 15:34 > *To:* Gary Fuhrman <g...@gnusystems.ca> > *Cc:* Peirce-L <peirce-l@list.iupui.edu> > *Subject:* Re: [PEIRCE-L] Dyadic relations within the triadic > > > > Gary F., List: > > > > As I see it, #11 is the main sticking point ... > > > > GF: My contrary claim is that the order in which trichotomies are listed > has nothing to do with the order of determination that applies to > correlates, and if Peirce had chosen to list them in the order I did, this > would make absolutely no difference to the tenfold classification of signs. > > > > ... because to me, it contradicts #7. > > > > GF: However the overlapping is constrained by the order of determination, > so that (for instance) the same sign cannot be both a sinsign and an > argument. > > > > The order of determination does not apply *only *to correlates, it > applies to *all *of the divisions for classifying Signs. In particular, > the Sign determines the Sign-Object relation, which determines how the > Interpretant represents the Sign. As I emphasized when I quoted it, the > order of the three trichotomies in CP 2.243 is *not *random or > inconsequential. For example, if it were switched to your order, an > Argument could be a Qualisign, and a Legisign could not be an Icon; but > these conclusions are inconsistent with the ten classes that Peirce went on > to identify. > > > > As for #12 ... > > > > GF: As I said above, there is no “Object trichotomy” or “Interpretant > trichotomy” in NDTR. > > > > This is true--but if there had been, the order of determination would have > been Interpretant, Object, Sign in accordance with CP 2.235-238. By 1908, > the order of determination was instead (two) Objects, Sign, (three) > Interpretants. > > > > Regards, > > > Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA > > Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman > > www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt > > > ----------------------------- > PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON > PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to > peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L > but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the > BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm > . > > > > > >
----------------------------- PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
