Re: [PEIRCE-L] interpretant and thirdness

[Gary Richmond]

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. . .
*Secondl*y, 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




Best,

Gary

On Fri, Dec 15, 2023 at 1:43 PM Jon Alan Schmidt 
wrote:

> 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 

Re: [PEIRCE-L] interpretant and thirdness

[Edwina Taborsky]

Jerry - I wonder if Peirce’s terms on the Interpretants  are just about result 
of his frequently exploring and using different terms, though I acknowledge he 
does this. 

There is an interesting paper by Brendan Lalor, Semiotics 114–1/2, 31-40, 1997 
on The Classification of Peirce’s Interpretants.

Briefly, he considers the two outlines of the tripartite division and their 
trichotomies [ which refer to the categories]. One outline is from 1906 [5.475, 
491]. The other is from 1909 [8.315]

The 1906 outline  provides  the three terms as: emotional, energetic and 
logical. The 1909 as immediate, dynamic and final.

The argument is over whether these two sets are synonymous or separate. One 
view sees that the two sets of terms are uniform and coextensive - even 
complementary. [ J. Liszka]; the other, that they are distinct. [ T. 
Short]…According to Short - the two sets are distinct; ie “he holds that each 
of the immediate, dynamic and final Interpretants may be divided into emotion, 
energetic and logical interpretants" [ which leads to nine possible 
interpretants]. 

That is, Short understands the 1906 as referencing the categories, and the 1909 
as cognitive place holders or nodes in the semiotic process, so to speak. 
[Note- Lalor makes a serious error in a quote where he mixes up the emotional 
with the energetic interpretant in 5.475] . Categorical formation and place 
holders - are two different semiosic processes. 

I tend to support Short’s view, ie, that there is an analytic reason for the 
different terms, and that this reason refers to the use of the categories in 
their functioning. After all - for example, a dynamic interpretant could 
function within any of the categorical modes not just Secondness [ that is, its 
‘place in the tripartite' is not synonymous with its categorical mode].  And a 
final Interpretant could, forever, function within a mode of 2ns - ie, as in a 
Dicent indexical Legisign.  

Whatever one personally concludes - it’s an interesting article to read.

Edwina Taborsky



> On Dec 14, 2023, at 5:00 PM, Jerry LR Chandler  
> wrote:
> 
> List:
> 
> If I may add a realistic note to the discussion on changing terminology. 
> My opinion come from three significant experiences with scientific notations.
> 
> Before I offer my opinions I would note historically that CSP writings are 
> flows of changing terminologies with rare examples of concerns about 
> precedence of prior terminologies.  Indeed, these flows of terminologies are 
> essential to the developments of his views, style, propositions and logics.  
> 
>  
> 
>> On Dec 13, 2023, at 6:26 PM, Edwina Taborsky > > wrote:
>> 
>> Jon, list
>> 
>> With regard to bringing Peirce’s work to a broader audience - I can think of 
>> a number of issues.
>> 
>> 1] We should not assume that our audience are first year undergraduates; as 
>> you point out - the people who are exploring Peirce may very well be much 
>> more advanced scholars in other fields, with their own discipline’s 
>> vocabulary and frameworks. I think we should be more amenable to enabling 
>> them to use their vocabulary and framework - within a Peircean framework. 
>> There is, for example, a great deal of excellent work on Anticipation - 
>> within physics, computers, AI, biology - which certainly fits in with 
>> Peirce’s work on Existential Graphs.  The terms used are different - but- 
>> the concepts are similar - and Peircean conferences should encourage this 
>> awareness - and not require the authors to use Peirce’s terms.
>> 
>> 2] I think a great setback and problem with using Peirce in these scientific 
>> areas was the original marginalizing of him by setting his work up as a ‘ 
>> Semiotics’ - with de Saussure as the main author and Saussure’s semiology as 
>> the main analytic framework within the field of semiotics. Saussure’s 
>> semiology is, in my view, a simplistic binary framework of ’this-means 
>> -that’ with an external Agent necessarily uniting the two - and furthermore 
>> - it is linguistic or cultural, and ignores the natural semiosis.. This 
>> framework readily enables an overarching ideology of other dyads - which fit 
>> right into the leftist Marxist frames of created  class and 
>> ‘oppressor/oppressed’ . And so, we get semiotics viewed as semiology [ which 
>> it is not] and operating as some kind of subjectivist free-interpretation…
>> The many books on semiotics all misuse Peirce in this way -  including 
>> providing images of the semiotic triad as a triangle [rather than an 
>> ‘umbrella-triadic spoke].
>> And of course - these works also totally misunderstand the categories.
>> 
>> Indeed - I think the categories are one of the most misunderstood of 
>> Peirce’s basic theories…[well, yes, so is the triad, locked into that 
>> triangle image]…
>> 
>> Edwina
>> 
>>> On Dec 13, 2023, at 5:36 PM, John F Sowa >> > wrote:
>>> 
>>> Jon, Robert, Edwina, List,
>>> 

Re: [PEIRCE-L] interpretant and thirdness

[Jon Alan Schmidt]

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 
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 
> 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 

Re: [PEIRCE-L] interpretant and thirdness

[Gary Richmond]

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 
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.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
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 

Re: [PEIRCE-L] interpretant and thirdness

[Jon Alan Schmidt]

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.