A few more comments. 1] With regard to your post, John - I support the shift from a language based analysis to an image based one - but - question whether the phaneron is “in direct contact with the ding an sich’. My understanding is that such a relationship never takes place.
2]with regard to the continuing exploration of JAS’s switch of the hexadic pattern of the Interpretants from II-DI-FI, to FI-DI-II… I continue to examine this. I’ll try an example.. First - my understanding of the FI is that it is not always operative, but it “does not consist in any way in which any mind does act but in the way in which every mind would act [8.315.1909. -and ’the effect the Sign would produce upon any mind upon which the circumstances should permit it to work out its full effect’. SS110-1. 1909 -“The Final Interpretant meaning that Habit in the production of which the function of the Sign, as such, is exhausted” 1910. ILS 285. I note several things from the above: - namely that the FI is not always operative, and that it is intimately connected to the Sign/Representamen [S/R]. The S/R is the site of knowledge production and generation and operates as the mediative process in understanding/ dealing with the effects and interactions of one entity with another. I am therefore concluding that the FI has the function and capacity to ADD to the knowledge base of the S/R. 3] Example. I am walking outside. Suddenly I feel ’something’ hit my arm. This first sensation sets up an interaction with the external world as a Dynamic Object. This DO immediately then, becomes ‘part’ of my experience and as such, is now an Immediate Object. My S/R or knowledge-producing system then goes to work..to process this input. My first experience is pure sensation, non-interpreted, non-described [ Firstness], which I would define as the Immediate Interpretant. In this phase, the S/R is itself in a mode of Firstness. But then, my system Reacts and moves into the Dynamic Interpretant phase, when I realize that I have been hit with an external object [Secondness or more likely Secondness-as-Firstness. [ a non-analyzed awareness of an external input]. ]. NOTE; In order to move from the II in a mode of 1ns into the DI in a mode of 2ns, my S/R has ADDED information. That is, my S/R has the knowledge base to tell me that what is going on is from an external interaction. Without such an addition - my interaction with the external object would remain as pure sensation and go no further. I might then react to this interaction with ‘ a spontaneous cry’ - a ‘local, non-intentional reaction to a local indexical stimulus. However my S/R might have the stored knowledge base to provide further informational input to enable me to analyze further what has taken place; my S/R is then operating within a mode of Thirdness - and enables me to move into a Dicent Symbolic Legisgn, an ‘informed’ conclusion, when I realize I’ve been hit with a baseball from the nearby game…- it’s an informed conclusion. Do I move into an FI - which would provide more information to store in my knowledge base, ie, a general hypothesis that IF you walk near a playing field, THEN, you might be hit. Not always, but, my point is only that the FI works to increase the knowledge base of the S/R I think the above example shares its explanations with the example provided by Peirce in 1909 8,314, when he outlines his wife’s experience to his description of the weather. I note that his outline of the FI “is the sum of the Lessons of the reply. Moral, Scientific, etc'" 4] This then moves to my questions about JAS’s placement of the FI as primary to the other Interpretants. I am defining the FI as a basic means of knowledge development - which knowledge is stored in the S/R. I can understand this primary role, BUT my point is only that for most of our experiences, we never involve the FI; ie, there is no knowledge generation and our Interpretant relations are confined to the II and DI. I therefore, can only continue to support the pattern of II-DI-FI. Edwina > On Apr 4, 2024, at 11:07 PM, John F Sowa <s...@bestweb.net> wrote: > > Edwina, Jon, List, > > The following observation is a good starting point for analyzing the > development iof Peirce's thought and writing from 1903 to 1908 and later: > > ET: I note that JAS seems to refer to his examination of the hexadic > semiosic process as within the linguistic realm. If this outline refers ONLY > to linguistic terms - then, I can see his point, where, for example, the word > ’STOP’ does have a ‘predestined meaning’ . But - I cannot see that Peirce’s > extensive examination of the semiotic process and the interpretants - is > confined to the linguistic realm, for such a realm-of-examination would > require merely half a paragraph - and not years of thought and work. > > Yes indeed. Peirce's shift from Kant's language-based phenomenology to an > image-based phaneroscopy was necessary to get rid of Kant's struggle with a > Ding an sich, Peirce's1903 terminology was based on language, which, by > itself, is hopelessly inadequate for mapping the phaneron to a linear > notation. But his shift from phenomenology to phaneroscopy coincided with an > emphasis on diagrams and images as more fundamental representations than > language or even his 1885 algebra of logic. That shift coincided with his > generalization of term, proposition, argument to seme, pheme, and delome. > For example, the following paragraph from 1906 summarizes the issues: > > "It is necessary that the Diagram should be an Icon in which the inferred > relation should be preserved. And it is necessary that it should be insofar > General that one sees that accompaniments are no part of the Object. The > Diagram is an Interpretant of a Symbol in which the signification of the > Symbol becomes a part of the object of the icon. No other kind of sign can > make a Truth evident. For the evident is that which is presented in an > image, leaving for the work of the understanding merely the Interpretation of > the Image in a Symbol." (LNB 286r, 1906) > > In his version of phenomenology, Kant was left with an unbridgeable gap > between a Ding an sich and the words that describe it. Peirce removed that > gap by replacing phenomenology with phaneroscopy. Too many people treat > those two words as synonyms. But the crucial difference is that the > phaneron is in direct contact with the Ding an sich. by means of the > sensations, feelings, and physical actions. The images and feelings become > semes, and constructions of them become phemes. Phaneroscopy is the science > of images, diagrams of images, and their mapping to symbols that may be > expressed in various ways, including language. > > But language is secondary. It is not the primary medium of thought. That is > why the 1903 lectures are just the starting point for his last decade of > research and his evolution to completely new ways of thinking and a > revolution in his methods of analyzing and diagramming his own thoughts and > his system of representing it. > > I started to write an article for the book Kees was editing, but I missed the > deadline because I kept revising it over and over again, as I kept running > into all these issues. It eventually evolved into an article on phaneroscopy > for the book that Ahti was editing. And after I finished that article, I saw > how those issues were related to (1) the topics that Tony was working on and > (2) the topics that Peirce was addressing with his Delta graphs. > > I believe that if Peirce had not had that accident in December 1911, he would > have written an outstanding proof of pragmatism with the help of his Delta > graphs and the methods he developed in the years after 1903. > > John > > > From: "Edwina Taborsky" <edwina.tabor...@gmail.com> > > List > > I think it’s almost useless to discuss these issues, since I’m aware that JAS > has his set of beliefs about the Peircean framework - and I [ and others] - > have our own beliefs - which may or may not, align with his. > > But just a few points: > > 1] JAS quote Peirce: “ No matter what his opinion at the outset may be, it is > assumed that he will end in one predestined belief” 7.327]. This quote is to > support his belief in the primacy of the order of the Final Interpretant in > the set of three Interpretants. But- JAS left out the following sentence, > which is” “Hence it appears tha in the process of investigation wholly new > ideas and elements of belief must spring up in the mind that were not there > before” …He continues on with this examination of the development of entirely > new ideas in the following paragraphs.[ Note = the process of abduction]. > > 2] And the same with his quotation from 5.407 “ No modification..can enable a > man to escape the predestined opinion" > . Again- like the other quotation, this is not referring to the three > interpretants or the Final Interpretant, but is an analysis of the ‘process > of investigation’ - which obviously involves all parts of the semiosic hexad. > > 3] And the same with 3.161 …carrying belief …toward certain predestinate > conclusions”. Again, this refers to the “process of inference” 3.161, snd not > the Fi, and as Peirce writes, these “fresh peripheral excitations are also > continually creating new belief-habits” [3.161. > > I could also note that the Final or logical interpretant is, “that of the > conditional mood’ [5.482] and therefore, in my view, not destinate’. > > And I don’t think that there is much difference in these conclusions as to > whether the terms are logical or temporal. > > 4] I remain concerned about out the definition of the Dynamic Object, which I > reject JAS’s view as “independent of the sign’. Peirce is quite explicit > that “reality is independent, not necessarily of thought in general, but > only of what you or I or any finite number of men may think about it” 5.408… > I refer to this comment of Peirce only to state that the reality of objects > ‘out there’ is, as he notes elsewhere, outside of our experience [see his > explanations of the ‘ding an sich’ which is not the same as the Dynamic > Object- which is “the Reality which by some means contrives to determine the > Sign of its Representation” 4.536.1906. And “the dynamical object does not > mean something out of the mind. It means something forced upon the mind in > perception” SS197..1906. > > That is, my understanding of the DO is that it functions as such ONLY when it > becomes part of the semiotic process. > > And as I’ve said before - I reject the use of the terms of genuine, > degenerate etc referring to the DO and IO [ and II, DI, FI] for this use of > terms I think refer more properly to the categorical modes-of-being - and > these nodal sites in the hexad can be in any one of the three modes. . > > 5] I note that JAS seems to refer to his examination of the hexadic semiosic > process as within the linguistic realm. If this outline refers ONLY to > linguistic terms - then, I can see his point, where, for example, the word > ’STOP’ does have a ‘predestined meaning’ . But - I cannot see that Peirce’s > extensive examination of the semiotic process and the interpretants - is > confined to the linguistic realm, for such a realm-of-examination would > require merely half a paragraph - and not years of thought and work. > > But- I am aware that JAS will not change his conclusions - and I, am not > ready to subscribe to his, so this post seems almost irrelevant, other than > that I prefer to not ‘be silent’ about issues which, to me, undermine the > value of the Peircean framework. > > 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.
