Apologies - in a hurry but the correct determination letters are:
DO-IO-R/S- II-DI-FI
IO- Immediate Object;
So, DO and DI are external to the sign vehicle; and IO and II are internal…..
Edwina
> On Dec 19, 2023, at 8:58 AM, Edwina Taborsky <edwina.tabor...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> I have a completely different analysis. A short outline is all I have time
> for...
>
> My view is that the terms of ‘genuine and degenerate refer only to the
> categorical modes, with Thirdness as genuine. [3-3], degenerate in the first
> degree [3-2] and degenerate in the second degree [ 3-1], [ See the many
> references in CP, eg, 5 66 and on. Same with Secondness; genuine [2-2] and
> degenerate in the first degree [2-1]. Obviously, Thirdness can have these
> three modes and Secondness can have these two modes. Nothing to do with the
> numerical number of these Relations.
>
> My view of the Semiosic triad/hexagon is that it is made up of correlates or
> relations, functioning in the deterministic order of DO-DI-R/S-II-DI-FI. I
> think most on this list would know what these abbreviations stand for.
> And the semiosic format is that the DO and DI are external to the
> sign-vehicle, while the DI and II are internal.
> There are many references to this outline - eg 8.333. The Fi, however, is not
> an individual correlate but hypothetical, emerging within a commonality of
> multiple sign-vehicle responses to the DO.
> These correlates in themselves as relations and determinants have nothing to
> do with the genuine/degenerate modes of the categories. The categories are
> additional aspects of the complex semiosic process and function within each
> of the correlates. So, a DO can function in a mode of 3ns, 2ns, 1ns. Same
> with the DI…[See the outline off the ten classes]. And of course, one can
> add their genuine and degenerate natures into the complex - being careful not
> to violate the deterministic rule - and come up with not merely 10 classes
> but 28 and 66. .
>
> For example a Decent Indexical Legisign, has its Interpretant in a mode of
> Secondness. The three Interpretants can all be in a mode of pure 2ns, - ie
> ALL are genuine modes! Or we could see a gradual entropy where one or more of
> the Interpretant Relations, still in 2ns, becomes degenerate. {See the
> outline of 28 classes provided by Marty and Benazet].
>
> Edwina
>
>> On Dec 18, 2023, at 8:05 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt <jonalanschm...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Gary R., List:
>>
>> To clarify further, no one is suggesting that all three interpretants are in
>> a "mode" of 3ns, nor that both objects are in a "mode" of 2ns. Using
>> Peirce's late taxonomies for sign classification, that would amount to
>> claiming that all three interpretants are always necessitants and both
>> objects are always existents--an impossible combination according to EP
>> 2:481 (1908), regardless of whether one aligns destinate/explicit with
>> final/immediate (as I do) or vice-versa.
>>
>> Instead, the point is simply that phaneroscopic analysis of the genuine
>> triadic relation between a sign, its object, and its interpretant reveals
>> that for any one sign, there are two objects and three interpretants. The
>> dynamical object is genuine, while the immediate object is degenerate. The
>> final interpretant is genuine, while the dynamical interpretant is
>> degenerate (relatively reactional) and the immediate interpretant is doubly
>> degenerate (relatively qualitative). It is in this context that the
>> interpretants themselves are a trichotomy, while in the context of sign
>> classification, there is a different trichotomy for each of them
>> individually.
>>
>> With that in mind, I continue to maintain that each genuine correlate
>> logically (not causally nor temporally) determines the corresponding
>> degenerate correlate(s), in the sense that the universe
>> (possible/existent/necessitant) of the genuine correlate constrains the
>> potential universes of the degenerate correlate(s). Again, along with the
>> obvious terminological affinities, this is why I align the destinate
>> interpretant with the final interpretant and the explicit interpretant with
>> the immediate interpretant.
>>
>> However, I am not (so far) convinced that it is accurate to say that the
>> genuine correlates involve the degenerate correlates in the way that 3ns
>> involves 2ns and 1ns, and 2ns involves 1ns. As far as I know, Peirce never
>> says nor implies that the dynamical object involves the immediate object;
>> nor that the final interpretant involves the dynamical interpretant, which
>> involves the immediate interpretant.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Jon
>>
>> On Sat, Dec 16, 2023 at 1:45 PM Jon Alan Schmidt <jonalanschm...@gmail.com
>> <mailto:jonalanschm...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>> Gary R., List:
>>>
>>> I did not say anything one way or the other about involution, I just
>>> explained why I used "determines." However, carefully parsing that quote
>>> (CP 5.72, EP 2:162, 1903), Peirce does not say that genuine 3ns involves
>>> reactional 3ns, which involves qualitative 3ns. What he says that for any
>>> class in whose essential idea the predominant element is 3ns, there are
>>> three subclasses--one involving a relatively genuine 3ns, one involving a
>>> relatively reactional 3ns, and one involving a relatively qualitative 3ns.
>>>
>>> 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 Fri, Dec 15, 2023 at 6:25 PM Gary Richmond <gary.richm...@gmail.com
>>> <mailto:gary.richm...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>> Jon,
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for your comments. However, I still tend to see the three genera of
>>>> interpretants involutionally. Are you saying that in the quotation in the
>>>> message to which I first responded that Peirce's writing that "Thirdness,
>>>> or Representation. . . 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" [emphasis
>>>> added] was merely an informal way of speaking? That 'involving
>>>> respectively' should not be seen as suggesting involution as Peirce
>>>> understood it?
>>>>
>>>> Of course I agree with you that 'logical determination' is what Peirce has
>>>> in mind in the quotation you offered in the message that I'm responding
>>>> to. But I still can't help but see a categorial involution of the three
>>>> interpretants: Destinate, genuine; Effective, relatively reactional, 1st
>>>> degree of degeneration; Explicit, relatively qualitative, 2nd degree of
>>>> degeneration.
>>>>
>>>> Thirdly, the Explicit Interpretant (1ns of 3ns)
>>>> |> Firstly, the Destinate Interpretant (3ns of 3ns) involves. . .
>>>> Secondly, the Effective Interpretant (2ns of 3ns) which in turn involves.
>>>> . .
>>>>
>>>> So, while from one perspective, logically the Destinate Interpretant
>>>> determines the Effective Interpretant, which determines the Explicit
>>>> Interpretant, from a slightly different logical perspective the three
>>>> stand in an involutional relation. Further, I believe that many categorial
>>>> aspects of semiosis can and ought to be considered from the standpoint of
>>>> more than one, in some cases perhaps several to all 6 of the categorial
>>>> vectors (that is, the six possible movements through the three categories).
>>>>
>>>> Regarding why you do not believe the trichotomy of interpretants ought to
>>>> be included in Peirce's Classification of Signs you write: "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."
>>>>
>>>> Strictly speaking, you are undoubtedly correct. But Peirce's analyses of
>>>> signs includes much more than merely the classification of individual
>>>> signs (the signs in the chart of the 10 classes of signs are but
>>>> abstractions as are the three interpretants, not 'living' signs in
>>>> semiosis).
>>>>
>>>> Again, strictly speaking, the classification of signs ought to be limited
>>>> to that chart and Peirce's discussion of the 10 classes. But some of
>>>> Peirce's analyses also include those elements which are involved (in the
>>>> non-technical sense) in semiosis. So, famously:
>>>>
>>>> Sign
>>>> |> Interpretant
>>>> Object
>>>> (Following the vector of determination in semiosis.)
>>>>
>>>> Peirce says that "Signs are divisible by three trichotomies" (CP 2.43)
>>>> these being (with no vectorial associations):
>>>>
>>>> The Sign in itself:
>>>>
>>>> Qualisign
>>>> |> Legisign
>>>> Sinsign
>>>>
>>>> The Sign in relation to its Object
>>>>
>>>> Icon
>>>> |> Symbol
>>>> Index
>>>>
>>>> The Sign in relation to its Interpretant
>>>>
>>>> Rheme
>>>> |> Argument
>>>> Dicisign
>>>>
>>>> "These three trichotomies of Signs result together in dividing Signs into
>>>> Ten Classes Signs." (CP2.254)
>>>>
>>>> So, I guess one could see these several uses of 'Sign' by Peirce as but
>>>> 'loose' language and, in fact, this terminological looseness -- especially
>>>> coming from a scholar much concerned with scientific terminology ---- has
>>>> resulted in some confusion in the past on this List and in, especially,
>>>> insome of the early literature where there were those who argued that an
>>>> Icon was indeed a Sign (whereas in the 10-adic classification there are
>>>> three iconic signs).
>>>>
>>>> While it is certain that, for example, the Qualisign is not and, indeed,
>>>> cannot itself be a Sign, such constituents of authentic signs have been
>>>> included at least as preparatory in Peirce's discussion of the
>>>> classification of signs. Some others, perhaps including the three
>>>> interpretant signs (as the interpretant is itself seen as a sign that has
>>>> been developed according to Peirce) may constitute something like a
>>>> supplement to that classification. But again, strictly speaking, you are
>>>> quite correct regarding the 10 classes of signs.
>>>>
>>>> (Disclosure: I'm currently reviewing some semeiotic 'basics' as I'm
>>>> preparing a presentation on Peirce's architectonic philosophy at APA this
>>>> January to an audience likely having little knowledge of Peirce's
>>>> architectonic, namely, Santayana scholars.)
>>>>
>>>> Best,
>>>>
>>>> Gary R
>> _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
>> 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.
>
> _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
> 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.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
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.
