Jon Allen, You seem to forget that 'the interpretant of a sign' differs from the 'interpretant sign', which in itself is a full blown sign, in need of its own qualisign, sinsign, etc, etc, and interpretant aspects. In the page https://rs.cms.hu-berlin.de/peircearchive/pages/preview.php?from=search&ref=13283 - (What a progress, i had to search the dusty corners of dusty university rooms in order to delve up the micro-fiche edition and have it printed) the structure is given for the interpretant regarded as a sign 1. A; 2. B. a.b.; 3. C. abc.
best, Auke > Op 21 april 2020 om 3:37 schreef Jon Alan Schmidt <jonalanschm...@gmail.com>: > > Auke, List: > > > > > AvB: You state that Peirce maintains that there are > exactly three interpretants and your proof seems to be that you nowhere found > more than three names for interpretants in the same passage. > > > > > > Indeed, I believe that if Peirce had held that there were more than three > interpretants, he would have said so somewhere explicitly. Instead, he > experimented with various combinations of different names for exactly three > interpretants, the most consistent of which are immediate/dynamical/final. > Emotional/energetic/logical only appear in the drafts for "Pragmatism" > (1907), and again, I see them as aligning directly with the divisions > according to the dynamical and final interpretants in other late taxonomies > as sympathetic/percussive/usual and gratific/actuous/temperative, > respectively. > > The division according the mode of presentation of the immediate > interpretant as hypothetic/categorical/relative is admittedly not so > straightforward. Peirce proposes it in a December 1908 draft letter to Lady > Welby "with great hesitation" (CP 8.369, EP 2:489), even though it appears in > his Logic Notebook as early as August 1906 (R 339:423-424[284r-285r]). Of > course, the adjectives themselves are commonly used for three different kinds > of propositions (CP 2.271, 1903), which are distinguished in existential > graphs (EGs) by how many lines of identity each requires--zero, one, and two > or more, respectively. > > > > > CSP: Also note that by this system every proposition is > either hypothetical, categorical, or relative, according to the number of > heavy lines necessary to express its form. (R 481:10, LF 1:290, 1896). > > > > > > However, an EG with no lines of identity can express a hypothetical > proposition only in the alpha system. The beta system recognizes that such a > proposition is "expressed in precisely the same form" as a categorical > proposition (CP 3.445, 1896), while a spot with no lines of identity attached > is an incomplete proposition--i.e., a term or rheme, whose number of pegs > matches its valency (CP 4.560, 1906). Therefore, the division according to > the immediate interpretant must come before the division according to the > nature of the influence of the sign; i.e., its relation to the final > interpretant. This properly ensures that all hypothetics are terms/semes, > while all propositions/phemes are either categoricals or relatives. > > Moreover, the sheet of assertion in EGs is strictly a logical quasi-mind, > so it can only be determined by signs whose dynamical interpretants are > further signs; i.e., usuals. Therefore, the division according to the mode > of presentation of the immediate interpretant must come after the division > according to the mode of being of the dynamical interpretant, such that a > usual can be a hypothetic, a categorical, or a relative. My proposed logical > order of determination for the three interpretant trichotomies (If→Id→Ii) is > consistent with this, while Robert Marty's (Ii→Id→If) is not. > > > > > AvB: I follow Van Driel. Who followed, without knowledge > of it, the division according to interpretants in: Logic Notebook entry dated > 8 oct. 1905; Ms 339 p. 253r > > > > > > But Peirce again identifies exactly three interpretants on that > manuscript page > https://rs.cms.hu-berlin.de/peircearchive/pages/preview.php?from=search&ref=13283 > --immediate, dynamic, and representative. His trichotomies on this occasion > are clamatory/imperative/representative for the immediate interpretant and > feeling/conduct/thought for the dynamic interpretant, while he does not > assign any names for the representative interpretant. The other three listed > divisions are for the interpretant relations--"Mode of Affecting Dynamic > Interp." (S-Id), which is "By Sympathy," "By Compulsion," or "By Reason"; > "Mode of being represented by Representative Interpretant" (S-If); and "Mode > of being represented to represent object by Repr. Interp." (Od-S-If). > > Regards, > > Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA > Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran > Laymanhttp://www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt > -http://twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt > > On Mon, Apr 20, 2020 at 6:14 AM Auke van Breemen < a.bree...@chello.nl > mailto:a.bree...@chello.nl > wrote: > > > > > > Jon Alan, > > > > This is a highly curious way of thinking of yours. You state that > > Peirce maintains that there are exactly three interpretants and your proof > > seems to be that you nowhere found more than three names for interpretants > > in the same passage. > > > > It is nice to find that we agree upon at least one thing, i.e. we > > have Peirce's, your's and my take on the interpretants. I ragard them as > > three immediate objects that try to capture the process of semiosis as > > regarded the dynamical object. > > > > JAS: there is arguably a sense in which I posit nine different > > interpretants. However, I strongly prefer not to characterize them that way > > > > If I understand the passage right you follow Shorts orthogonal > > arrangement, Zeman entertaning a more sober arrangement with only six > > interpretants. I follow Van Driel. Who followed, without knowledge of it, > > the division according to interpretants in: > > > > Logic Notebook entry dated 8 oct. 1905; Ms 339 p. 253r > > > > Best, > > > > Auke > > > > > > ----------------------------- > 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 .
