Edwina, List: In light of our longstanding and all-too-often contentious disagreements about Peirce's speculative grammar, I generally prefer to refrain from direct engagement these days, but I have decided to make an exception in this case. Hopefully, I will not regret it.
ET: I am aware that JAS’s use of ‘determines’ is not synonymous with ‘causes’ or ‘precedes’ - but is ‘logically constrains’. However, something that ‘logically constrains’ DOES, functionally operate as causal and precedent to other forces- otherwise - how would it function as that constraint? Again, we are discussing an abstract *classification *of signs that utilizes a series of different *trichotomies*, not the concrete *process *of semiosis that consists of a series of different *events*. To say that one trichotomy *follows *another is merely to say that classification in accordance with the first trichotomy *logically constrains *classification in accordance with the second trichotomy. If we assign numbers to the universes--1 for possibles, 2 for existents, and 3 for necessitants--then the number assigned for each subsequent trichotomy must be equal to or less than the number assigned for the preceding trichotomy. ET: And, to my understanding, JAS’s definition of the Interpretants includes an assumption that each is also in a different categorical mode, ie, as he says: possible-existent-necessitant [for Immediate/Dynamic and Final]. But this is not found in Peirce’s outline of the ten classes. No, this is a *mis*understanding of my position. It confuses the phaneroscopic analysis of the genuine triadic relation of representing/mediating (one sign, two objects, three interpretants) with the classification of signs in accordance with Peirce's 1908 taxonomy using ten trichotomies for those six correlates and their four distinct relations as divisions into three universes (possibles, existents, necessitants). These are two *different *applications of Peirce's three universal categories (1ns, 2ns, 3ns). ET: And, for an Interpretant to function as ‘constraint’ would mean that the Interpretant would have to be in a mode of 3ns, [understood as a necessitant] but, if we consider the ten classes, then, we find that ONLY ONE of the ten has the Interpretant in a mode of 3ns. The others - six are in a mode of 1ns and three are in a mode of 2ns, ie, are dicisigns. I think this is a key point - only one of the ten classes has the Final Interpretant in a mode of 3ns, ie, capable of imposing constraint. A FI in a mode of 1ns or 2ns cannot impose constraint. This seems to be a reference to Peirce's 1903 taxonomy, not the 1908 taxonomy that we are actually discussing. In that 1903 taxonomy, the third trichotomy is not for the interpretant *itself*, but for its dyadic *relation *with the sign (rheme/dicisign/argument). An argument is indeed the only sign class for which this sign-interpretant relation is a necessitant, but no one is talking about that relation or the final interpretant *itself *constraining anything--its *trichotomy *constrains any subsequent *trichotomies *for sign classification. For example, according to Peirce himself, the S-If trichotomy constrains the S-Id trichotomy. CSP: According to my present view, a sign may appeal to its dynamic interpretant in three ways: 1st, an argument [delome] only may be *submitted *to its interpretant [indicative], as something the reasonableness of which will be acknowledged. 2nd, an argument or dicent [pheme] may be *urged *upon the interpretant by an act of insistence [imperative]. 3rd, argument or dicent may be, and a rheme [seme] can only be, presented to the interpretant for *contemplation* [suggestive]. (CP 8.338, 1904 Oct 12) In fact, this is my fourth reason for believing that the proper logical order of the three interpretant trichotomies for sign classification is final, then dynamical, then immediate--since the S-If trichotomy unambiguously comes *before *the S-Id trichotomy, it makes sense that the If trichotomy likewise comes *before *the Id trichotomy. ET: And - there is no argument that, one cannot move, cognitively, from possible to existent to necessitate [1ns to 2ns to 3ns] BUT this does not then mean that the Final Interpretant is in a mode of 3ns! All it means is that, if the Immediate Interpretant is in a mode of 1ns, then, the other two interpretants will be in the same mode. BUT, if the immediate interpretant is in a mode of 2ns, then, the Dynamic and Final Intepretants can be either in a modes of 1ns or 2ns. Again, we are discussing sign classification, not "cognitive movement" (whatever that is). My position is that the *purpose *of the final interpretant (to produce feeling/action/self-control) constrains the *mode of being* of the dynamical interpretant (feeling/exertion/sign), which constrains the *mode of presentation* of the immediate interpretant (hypothetic/categorical/relative). The competing claim is that the mode of presentation of the immediate interpretant constrains the mode of being of the dynamical interpretant, which constrains the purpose of the final interpretant. I find the former much more plausible than the latter. Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt / twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt On Thu, Apr 4, 2024 at 12:53 PM Edwina Taborsky <edwina.tabor...@gmail.com> wrote: > List > > I am aware that JAS’s use of ‘determines’ is not synonymous with ‘causes’ > or ‘precedes’ - but is ‘logically constrains’. However, something that > ‘logically constrains’ DOES, functionally operate as causal and precedent > to other forces- otherwise - how would it function as that constraint?. > > And, to my understanding, JAS’s definition of the Interpretants includes > an assumption that each is also in a different categorical mode, ie, as he > says: possible-existent-necessitnat [ for Immediate/Dynamic and Final]. But > this is not found in Peirce’s outline of the ten classes. > > And, for an Interpretant to function as ‘constraint’ would mean that the > Interpretant would have to be in a mode of 3ns, [ understood as a > necessitant] but, if we consider the ten classes, then, we find that ONLY > ONE of the ten has the Interpretant in a mode of 3ns. The others - six are > in a mode of 1ns and three are in a mode of 2ns, ie, are dicisigns. . I > think this is a key point - only one of the ten classes has the Final > Interpretant in a mode of 3ns, ie, capable of imposing constraint. A FI in > a mode of 1ns or 2ns cannot impose constraint. > > And when we consider Robert Marty’s outline of the hexadic ten classes - > we see, of course, the same format > > Where then is the constraint? It’s within the mediative > representamen/sign, not within the Interpretants. It is this site that > plays the key role in forming the nature of the sign triad’/hexad. > > And - there is no argument that, one cannot move, cognitively, from > possible to existent to necessitate [ 1ns to 2ns to 3ns] BUT this does not > then mean that the Final Interpretant is in a mode of 3ns! All it means is > that, if the Immediate Interpretant is in a mode of 1ns, then, the other > two interpretants will be in the same mode. BUT, if the immediate > interpretant is in a mode of 2ns, then, the Dynamic and Final Intepretants > can be either in a modes of 1ns or 2ns. Again - see Robert Marty’s > outlines. > > Edwina >
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 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.
