Bernard, List: Just a quick follow-up--I outlined below what my proposed sequence for the last six trichotomies entails for the possible and necessitant classes, but here is what it entails for the existent classes.
- An actuous (purpose of If is to produce action) can be a percussive (Id is an action) or a sympathetic (Id is a feeling) but cannot be a usual (Id is a further sign). - A percussive can be a categorical (EG requires at least one line of identity) or a hypothetic (no lines of identity) but cannot be a relative (at least two lines of identity). - A categorical can be a proposition/dicisign/pheme or a term/rheme/seme but cannot be an argument/delome. - A proposition/dicisign/pheme can be an imperative (urged) or a suggestive (presented) but cannot be an indicative (submitted). - An imperative can be an inducent (assurance of experience) or an abducent (assurance of instinct) but cannot be a deducent (assurance of form). Again, this all generally makes sense to me, more so than any of the alternatives. Regards, Jon S. On Thu, Nov 11, 2021 at 7:33 PM Jon Alan Schmidt <jonalanschm...@gmail.com> wrote: > Bernard, List: > > Thanks very much for these comments. I am grateful to all the contributors > to this thread, whose posts have been consistently respectful, substantive, > and on-topic--Jack, Gary F., Jeff, Gary R., Mike, Helmut, Phyllis, > Vinicius, Robert, Mary, and now Bernard. Our views diverge when we get down > to many of the details, but we have been able to express those > disagreements without becoming disagreeable. > > In this case, I have a different opinion on the logical order of the ten > trichotomies--I see it as Od, Oi, S, Od-S, If, Id, Ii, S-If, S-Id, Od-S-If; > using Peirce's Roman numerals (EP 2:483-490, 1908), III, II, I, IV, VIII, > VI, V, IX, VII, X. The underlying principles are (a) the object determines > the sign to determine the interpretant, (b) the correlates determine their > relations, and (c) each genuine correlate determines its degenerate > correlate(s). The resulting arrangement of the last six divisions produces > a taxonomy of sign classes that generally makes sense to me, more so than > any of the alternatives. > > - A temperative (purpose of If is to produce self-control) can be a > usual (Id is a further sign), a percussive (Id is an action), or a > sympathetic (Id is a feeling), while a gratific can only be a sympathetic. > - A usual can be a relative (EG requires at least two lines of > identity), a categorical (at least one line of identity), or a hypothetic > (no lines of identity), while a sympathetic can only be a hypothetic. > - A relative can be an argument/delome, a proposition/dicisign/pheme, > or a term/rheme/seme, while a hypothetic can only be a term/rheme/seme. > - An argument/delome can be an indicative (submitted), an imperative > (urged), or a suggestive (presented), while a term/rheme/seme can only be a > suggestive (cf. CP 8.338, 1904). > - An indicative can be a deducent (assurance of form), an inducent > (assurance of experience), or an abducent (assurance of instinct), while a > suggestive can only be an abducent. > > As for the normal interpretant, I have mentioned previously that I take > "normal" in this context to mean "normative" rather than "in accordance > with the usual course of things," such that it is equivalent to the final > interpretant in the sense of a *final cause*, as well as the destinate > interpretant in the sense of the sign's *destined *effect after infinite > inquiry by an infinite community. Peirce prepared the entries for both > "normal" and "normative" in the *Century Dictionary*, and his definitions > are consistent with viewing these terms as nearly synonymous ( > http://triggs.djvu.org/century-dictionary.com/djvu2jpgframes.php?volno=05&page=461 > ). > > *normal, **a. **1.* According to a rule, principle, or norm; conforming > to established law, order, habit, or usage: conforming with a certain type > or standard: not abnormal; regular; natural. > > *2.* Serving to fix a standard; intended to set a standard > > *normative, **a. *Establishing or setting up a norm, or standard which > ought to be conformed to. > > > Regards, > > Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA > Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian > www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt > > On Thu, Nov 11, 2021 at 12:25 PM Bernard Morand <morand.bern...@neuf.fr> > wrote: > >> JAS, Vinicius, List >> >> Le 10/11/2021 à 20:50, Jon Alan Schmidt a écrit : >> > >> > In my view, Peirce eventually gets the logical order of the >> correlates right in his later taxonomies--the object determines the sign >> to determine the interpretant, and the genuine object or >> interpretant determines the degenerate object or interpretants. Hence, >> "the Dynamoid Object determines the Immediate Object, which determines >> the Sign itself, which determines the Destinate [final] Interpretant, which >> determines the Effective [dynamical] Interpretant, which determines the >> Explicit [immediate] Interpretant" (EP 2:481, 1908). Again, in this >> context, "determines" means "constrains the potential universe(s) of," not >> "causes" or "temporally precedes." To obtain the ten-trichotomy, 66-class >> taxonomy, I advocate inserting the division according to the Od-S relation >> after the one for the sign itself and placing the divisions according to >> the S-If, S-Id, and Od-S-If relations in that sequence after the one for >> the immediate interpretant. >> > >> > All that said, as I mentioned a few days ago and hinted above, I >> now agree with James Liszka (https://doi.org/10.1515/sem-2018-0089) >> that focusing on classifying arbitrarily demarcated "individual" >> signs is misplaced, and that concentrating instead on the real and >> continuous process of semiosis is more fruitful. >> > >> Jon, it seems to me that you reach a similar conclusion as mine about the >> organisation of the second division of signs. >> >> As this conclusion may appear quite disturbing to many readers, the >> agreement is worth noticing. >> >> I published it in French in a book entitled "Logique de la Conception. >> Figures de sémiotique générale d'après C.S. Peirce." (L'Harmattan, Paris) >> in 2004. >> >> I join in attached file a schema (Fig. 14 p. 228 of the book) that shows >> how I think the classification of 1903 and the second one are articulated: >> the first (on the right of the figure) is embodied into the second on the >> left). >> >> The second classification adds the ordered divisions VIII, VII, VI, V >> which are an unfolding of the basic original division relative to the >> interpretant of the sign. >> >> At the other end, the additional divisions III, II relative to the Object >> of the sign remained hidden in the previous first division relative to the >> Sign itself. >> >> Finally another division, X, has been inserted into the table to mark the >> actual effect of the final interpretant. >> >> This latter consideration makes me doubt that the Final interpretant in >> its usual peircean sense may be there: its place is taken by the "Normal" >> Interpretant which I interpret as normal or usual course of things (Not >> what can be supposed to be reached in the long run and thus not yet >> actually known). This I think is the very sense of "Destinate". I came to >> the ordering shown in the Fig. 14 of divisions III -> II -> I -> IV -> X -> >> IX -> VIII -> VII -> VI -> V after recognizing the construction Peirce used >> in his own labelling of these divisions. >> >> I totally agree too with the remark from Liszka that you are quoting. >> >> Apologies for the french language in the added figure. >> >> Regards >> >> Bernard Morand >> >
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ► 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 UNSUBSCRIBE PEIRCE-L in the SUBJECT LINE of the message and nothing in the body. More at https://list.iupui.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.
