Jon Alan,
You wrote: Why would you say that? We have not been talking about a series of interpretant signs within the continuous process of semeiosis [ - No, we only dealt with the sign, sign interpretation, interpretant sign segment of such a process, And on top of tbhat only in an analytical way in order to identify the different aspects. Not the continuous process. That would make things more difficult. You wrote: ] but rather the three different interpretants as distinguished by analysis in speculative grammar. -- First remark. This statement is to vague. What do you mean by this? Do you think we discussed speculative grammar or Peirce's text on speculative grammar? You pick your choice, so it appears to me, as is convenient for you. As far as i am concerned I have been clear enough in my interest: i.e. my interest is systematic not biographical. Second remark. We have been discussing the question whether only three interpretants are distinguished by Peirce. Lots of other names are to be found in his text and it would be foolish to suppose that Peirce used such a lot of different terms, just to indicate the three very same interpretants every time. Why would he? Boredom, flashes of madness? Last remark. You were talking about the three different interpretants only. I was not, I was talking about making sense of the lot. So, in the end we proved not to communicate. Best, Auke > Op 22 april 2020 om 2:34 schreef Jon Alan Schmidt <jonalanschm...@gmail.com>: > > Auke, List: > > > > > AvB: 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. > > > > > > Why would you say that? We have not been talking about a series of > interpretant signs within the continuous process of semeiosis, but rather the > three different interpretants as distinguished by analysis in speculative > grammar. Moreover, not all signs have further signs as their dynamical > interpretants (usuals); some produce exertions (percussives), while others > produce only feelings (sympathetics). > > > > > AvB: ... the structure is given for the interpretant > regarded as a sign 1. A; 2. B. a.b.; 3. C. abc. > > > > > > That structure is given for any sign whatsoever, as follows (R > 339:386[253r], 1905 Oct 8). > * A is the "Division according to the matter of the sign," S = > qualisign/sinsign/legisign. > * Under B are the "Divisions according to the Object." > o B.a is "According to the Immediate Object (how represented)," > Oi = indefinite/singular/distributively general. > o Under B.b are the divisions "According to the Dynamic Object." > + B.b.α is according to the "Matter of the Dynamic > Object," Od = abstract/concrete/collection. > + B.b.β is according to the "Mode of representing > object," Od-S = icon/index/symbol. > * Under C are the "Division[s] according to Interpretant." > o C.a is "According to Immediate Interpretant (How > represented)," Ii = clamatory/imperative/representative. > o Under C.b are the divisions "According to Dynamic > Interpretant." > + C.b.α is according to the "Matter of Dynamic > Interpretant," Id = feeling/conduct/thought. > + C.b.β is according to the "Mode of Affecting Dynamic > Interp.," S-Id = by sympathy/compulsion/reason. > o Under C.c are the divisions "According to Representative > Interpretant." > + C.c.α is according to the "Matter of Representative > Interpretant," If. > + C.c.β is according to the "Mode of being represented by > Representative Interpretant," S-If. > + C.c.γ is according to the "Mode of being represented to > represent its object by Repr. Interp.," Od-S-If. > These are the same ten trichotomies that Peirce consistently identifies > between 1905 and 1909. The terminology varies over that time--"dynamic" vs. > "dynamical," the names of the three interpretants, and the names of the > classes within each division--but the overall scheme remains unchanged. > Francesco Bellucci discusses what was basically the very last wrinkle on pp. > 346-347 of his book, Peirce's Speculative Grammar: Logic as Semiotic--the > suggestion of a hierarchical rather than linear order. > > > > > CSP: The light which the 2 trichotomies referred to in > the last paragraph but one above [Od-S and S-Id] throw upon each other > suggests a method of study that I have hitherto employed only in getting as > clear ideas as I have (and they ought to be more definite) of the 1st and 2nd > trichotomies [S and Oi] or (using the excellent notation of 1905 Oct 12) A > and Ba. I am now applying the same method to Bbβ and Cbβ. It ought to be > applied not merely to A and Ba but further to A, Ba, and Ca taken together. > Also to A Ba Bbα to A Ba Cbα to Bbα Cbα. Then to A Bβ Ccγ etc. to Ba Bbα Ccα > to A Bbα Ccα etc. (R 339:541[360r], 1909 Nov 1) > > > > > > The designations here are the same as above, although the reference is to > a longer entry in the Logic Notebook written a few days later. As Bellucci > summarizes, "the ten trichotomies are arranged in a tree-structure, not as a > linear succession," but "Peirce never managed to apply to his tenfold > taxonomy of signs the new step-by-step method." Bellucci does not attempt to > do so himself; and as far as I know, no one else has tried yet either. > > Regards, > > Jon S. > > On Tue, Apr 21, 2020 at 4:18 AM < a.bree...@chello.nl > mailto:a.bree...@chello.nl > wrote: > > > > > > 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 mailto: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 .
