Gary R., List: GR: I note that you use the term 'determine' to express these relations while in the Peirce quotation above Peirce writes "involving."
I use "determines" because that is what Peirce himself uses for the three interpretants in EP 2:481 (1908)--"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 ..." Again, this is a *logical *ordering of the corresponding trichotomies for sign classification, not a *temporal *sequence within the actual process of semiosis. GR: I also don't see -- or, perhaps, don't yet understand -- why you write that the three interpretants "are not a trichotomy for sign classification." Why not? The point here is that a sign is never classified according to *whether *its interpretant is immediate, dynamical, or final. On the contrary, *every *sign can have *all three* interpretants. Instead, each of the two objects and three interpretants corresponds to a *different *trichotomy for sign classification, and there are additional trichotomies for the dyadic relations of the sign to its external objects and interpretants (dynamical and final), as well as the triadic relation of the sign to its genuine object (dynamical) and interpretant (final). Regards, Jon On Fri, Dec 15, 2023 at 12:23 PM Gary Richmond <gary.richm...@gmail.com> wrote: > Jon, > > Thank you for presenting the alignment of the Peirce's three different > terminological expressions of the three interpretants so succinctly, which > is also to say that I agree with you -- as opposed to that anonymous > reviewer -- that the "[explicit/ effective/ destinate interpretants] ought > be aligned with the others" since, as you wrote: "The terms themselves > clearly imply this." > > You also write that aligning them thusly "is also consistent with the > principle that the genuine correlate (destinate/final) determines the > degenerate correlate (effective/dynamical), which determines the doubly > degenerate correlate (explicit/immediate). . .'' So expressed, this seems > to follow the i*nvolutional* vector commencing at 3ns, moving through > 2ns, to 1ns. I note that you use the term 'determine' to express these > relations while in thePeirce quotation above Peirce writes "involving." > > I also don't see -- or, perhaps, don't yet understand -- why you write > that the three interpretants "are not a trichotomy for sign > classification." Why not? It seems to me that immediate/dynamical/final are > aligned with 1ns/2ns/3ns. Granted the three interpretants "constitute a > trichotomy in the specific sense defined by Peirce," but the "genuine > thirdness" of the final interpretant followed by the two genera of > degeneracy seem to me marked categorially: dynamic/"reactional" (2ns) and > immediate/"qualitative"1ns) as are all the other elements in Peirce's > classification as I read it. So why exclude the three interpretants from > Peirce's classification of signs as they seem to be a categorial > subdivision of an essential sign element, viz., the interpretant? > > Best, > > Gary R > > On Fri, Dec 15, 2023 at 8:49 AM Jon Alan Schmidt <jonalanschm...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> List: >> >> For the record (again), although the three interpretants are not a >> trichotomy for sign classification, they do constitute a trichotomy in the >> specific sense defined by Peirce as follows. >> >> CSP: Taking any class in whose essential idea the predominant element is >> Thirdness, or Representation, the self-development of that essential idea >> ... results in a *trichotomy *giving rise to three subclasses, or >> genera, involving respectively a relatively genuine thirdness, a relatively >> reactional thirdness or thirdness of the lesser degree of degeneracy, and a >> relatively qualitative thirdness or thirdness of the last degeneracy. (CP >> 5.72, EP 2:162, 1903) >> >> >> Final interpretants as effects that signs *ideally would* produce are >> relatively genuine, dynamical interpretants as effects that signs *actually >> do* produce are relatively reactional (degenerate), and immediate >> interpretants as effects that signs *possibly could* produce are >> relatively qualitative (doubly degenerate). >> >> I initially addressed the explicit/effective/destinate interpretants at >> greater length in my *Semiotica *paper, but an anonymous reviewer >> adamantly rejected my argument for aligning them with >> immediate/dynamical/final. The terms themselves clearly imply this, and it >> is also consistent with the principle that the genuine correlate >> (destinate/final) determines the degenerate correlate >> (effective/dynamical), which determines the doubly degenerate correlate >> (explicit/immediate)--a logical ordering, not a temporal sequence. >> Nevertheless, I ultimately opted to leave out that entire section and only >> provide note 3 instead of continuing to debate the matter, especially since >> it was not directly relevant to my central thesis--the alignment of >> emotional/energetic/logical with immediate/dynamical/final. >> >> 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 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.
