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
<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
<http://www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt> -
twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt <http://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 topeirc...@list.iupui.edu .
► To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message NOT to PEIRCE-L but tol...@list.iupui.edu
with UNSUBSCRIBE PEIRCE-L in the SUBJECT LINE of the message and nothing in the
body. More athttps://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.
