Jon, List, I appreciate your unusually exhaustive work on this delicate issue, and almost agree with its conclusion. My criticism concerns the invisible but very real limitations you have imposed on it, for reasons of your own; they detract from its scope, and that's a pity. I'll explain myself in a few points that I'm obviously ready to discuss. In order of importance: 1. First of all, I'd like to draw your attention to your use of the term "trichotomy" in connection with the various triplets of names you've pointed out. This term appears 6 times in your text; on examination, you share this qualification with Bergman and De Tienne, but not with Peirce (nor does it appear in any of the 76 definitions of the sign I've pointed out). It's a very dangerous denomination that creates confusion for two reasons: - These divisions are not trichotomies in the sense of Peirce, who defines them as follows and uses them systematically when classifying the Sciences of Discovery:
*It turns out that in most cases the divisions are trichotomic; the First of the three members relating to universal elements or laws, the Second arranging classes of forms and seeking to bring them under universal laws, the Third going into the utmost detail, describing individual phenomena and endeavoring to explain them. But not all the divisions are of this characte*r (CP 1.180) The right word is "tripartition" for the interpretants (and for the two objects it will be bipartition ). NB: Divisions that are not trichotomous are precisely partitions, like the bipartition between Physics and Psychics Sciences. - What's more, you can't ignore the fact that, when classifying signs, Peirce, like all his epigones, proceeded to trichotomize each of the sign's constituent elements to 3, 6 or 10 (undefined in my opinion) and retained only the valid combinations, respectively 10, 28 and 66. (I evoked a "thichotomic machine" to show the systematic nature of these operations; this machine has long been programmed by Patrick Benazet for any number n of partitions: patrick-benazet.chez-alice.fr/treillis_en_ligne/lattices). 2 . Then there's the inevitable question of determinations, which you can't avoid. You try to sidestep it by pointing out, just in note 3, in which you evoke a certain "context" of controversy that obscures the essential point, namely determinations. Here's the full quote: I *t is evident that a possible can determine nothing but a Possible, it is equally so that a Necessitant can be determined by nothing but a Necessitant. Hence it follows from the Definition of a Sign that since the Dynamoid Object determines; the Immediate Object,* * Which determines the Sign itself, * * Which determines the Destinate Interpretant* * Which determines the Effective Interpretant* * Which determines the Explicit Interpretant* * the six trichotomies, instead of determining 729 classes of signs, as they would if they were independent, only yield 28 classes; and if, as I strongly opine (not to say almost prove) there are four other trichotomies of signs of the same order of importance, instead of making 59049 classes, these will only come to 66.... You consider them in the triadic sign (see the first sentence of your abstract. Why don't you consider them for the "hexadic" sign? (*SS, 1908 Dec 23, p.31) Why are determinations important? Quite simply because, without determinations, there can be no mastery of the combinatorial explosion. It's thanks to the determinations that go from one trichotomy to the next, respecting the obvious permissions of one over the other, that the 28 authorized classes are built. This is an absolute necessity, on the pain of leaving semiotics behind. Moreover, when Peirce forgets this, he ends up leaving 59049 difficult questions for future explorers (CP 8.343). Why doesn't Peirce mention them every time? Because it's obvious to him, if only because of the consequences. In short, the mere mention of classes of signs as part of Peircean semiotics is equivalent to the recognition of successive determinations between elements, while respecting the relations of interdependence between universal categories. The classes of signs thus bring back light on the definitions of the sign itself. I've been modeling all this in formal mathematical terms for a long time (see all my Academia.edu texts, which I'm going to integrate into a treatise). This debate gives me a chance to relaunch it. 2. I come to your conclusion, which I almost share. Indeed, Peirce's division of tripartitions into two classes: - *The immediate, dynamical, and final interpretants are the corresponding effects of signs in general.* *- The emotional, energetic, and logical interpretants are the familiar effects of signs that humans routinely experience as "modifications of consciousness.*" (JA Schmidt, p.222) In fact, the relationship between the two classes is one of general to particular (and not just of complementarity, which is a somewhat "ensembleist" view of the question). The latter is the particularity of the former. I fully subscribe to this vision as soon as it is formulated in this way. All the more so as it allows me to situate my work well (thank you for that), because with mathematics, I invest (formalize) the general with the universal, and that's all there is to it! And when that's done, I have a royal road to show, thanks to category theory (which enables me to do what set theory doesn't), that I can achieve a structuring of classes of signs (with lattices) ) that Peirce intuited (the "affinities"). These lattices correspond perfectly to Peirce's Gramatica Speculativa (this becomes clear in the rigorously organized Classification of the Sciences in Peirce's "Well of truth". That's why I've made it my Chapter 1, the entry point into "the peircean exact thinking." But that's another story... Regards, Robert Marty Honorary Professor ; PhD Mathematics ; PhD Philosophy fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Marty *https://martyrobert.academia.edu/ <https://martyrobert.academia.edu/>* Le mar. 12 déc. 2023 à 14:56, Jon Alan Schmidt <[email protected]> a écrit : > List: > > JFS: Another term that raises confusion is "final interpretant". I > believe that Peirce used that term for discussing important issues. But > the details of multiple levels of interpretants are unclear. I noticed > that in the last decade of his life, when Lady Welby was his primary > correspondent, he avoided that issue. That does not imply that Peirce > thought that the word was irrelevant. But it suggests that he did not > require that word for the most important issues he discussed with her, > William James, and other late correspondents. > > > For the record, Peirce did not at all avoid the issue of multiple > interpretants, including the final interpretant, in his late correspondence > with Lady Welby and William James. On the contrary, he introduces the whole > notion of three interpretants in one such letter > (immediate/dynamic/signified; CP 8.333-339, SS 32-35, 1904 Oct 12), briefly > mentions it again in another (explicit/effective/destinate; EP 2:481, SS > 84, 1908 Dec 14), and elaborates on it extensively in several others > (immediate/dynamical/final; CP 8.184-185, EP 2:496, 1909 Feb 26; SS > 109-111, 1909 Mar 14; CP 8.315, EP 2:499-500, 1909 Apr 1). For more on this > subject, please see my recent *Semiotica *paper, "Peirce's Evolving > Interpretants" (https://philpapers.org/archive/SCHPEI-12.pdf). > > Regards, > > Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA > Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian > www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt / twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt > _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ > ARISBE: THE PEIRCE GATEWAY is now at > https://cspeirce.com and, just as well, at > https://www.cspeirce.com . It'll take a while to repair / update all the > links! > ► PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON > PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to > [email protected] . > ► To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message NOT to PEIRCE-L but to > [email protected] 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.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ARISBE: THE PEIRCE GATEWAY is now at https://cspeirce.com and, just as well, at https://www.cspeirce.com . It'll take a while to repair / update all the links! ► PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to [email protected] . ► To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message NOT to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] 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.
