Edwina, List: ET: I’m not sure why you have defined the object as ‘dynamical’; and the interpretant as ‘final’. Peirce didn’t do that in this section.
This is not at all controversial among Peirce scholars. He does not refer to the *dynamical *object and *final *interpretant in 1903 because he has not yet recognized that each sign has two objects and three interpretants. We know for sure that the 1903 object is the *dynamical *object because the 1906-1908 trichotomy for the sign's relation to its dynamical object is icon/index/symbol, identical to the second 1903 trichotomy for the sign's relation to its object. We know for sure that the 1903 interpretant is the *final *interpretant because the 1906-1908 trichotomy for the sign's relation to its final interpretant is seme/pheme/delome, the generalization of rheme/dicisign/argument, which is the third 1903 trichotomy for the sign's relation to its interpretant. ET: I note that you have added, without informing the reader, all the terms in brackets; they are not in the original writing of Peirce. The use of brackets is standard practice when inserting words into a quotation that do not appear in the original text, often for the sake of clarification. CP, EP, and other published collections of Peirce's writings do this routinely. ET: What do YOU mean by ‘genuine’ and how does that explain the semiotic process? The term and concept are Peirce's, not mine. I suggest reading CP 1.521-544 (1903). ET: And what is the functional difference between the three categories and the three universes? The three categories are the irreducible elements of whatever is or could be present to the mind (quality/reaction/mediation), while the three universes together contain whatever could serve as the dynamical objects of signs (possibles/existents/necessitants). Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt / twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt On Fri, Apr 5, 2024 at 5:58 PM Edwina Taborsky <edwina.tabor...@gmail.com> wrote: > > 1] ET: I’m not sure why you have defined the object as ‘dynamical’; and > the interpretant as ‘final’. Peirce didn’t do that in this section.. Again > - my problem is with your focus on the Final Interpretant. > > ET: I note that you have added, without informing the reader, all the > terms in brackets; they are not in the original writing of Peirce. Again - > Peirce does not write ’the relation of the sign to its (dynamical) object; > he writes only: ‘the relation of the sign to its object". And he also does > not write ‘according as its [final] Interpretant…but only “in its relation > to an interpretant”. > > 2] ET: I don’t agree that the fact that the Representamen/Sign is not > split up [ as the object is into the DO and IO] snd the Interpretant is > into the II, DI, FI] means that these can be defined as ‘degenerate > sub-correlates'. > > I understand them instead, within their functional semiosic role, where > the IO is understood as the data accepted within the capacities of the S/R > to process it. That is - even though an entity’s S/R may be interacting > with an external Object [ DO], it is a fact that not all of the data input > of that DO can be processed/received by that individual S/R. A baby > receives different sensual data from an adult; a bee, a dog, a plant..can > interact with that same DO but can only accept receive different sensual > data [IO]. . > > 3] ET: Again, I don’t agree with your view about ‘genuine dyadic > relations’ and ‘genuine triadic relation’. What do YOU mean by ‘genuine’ > and how does that explain the semiotic process? And what is the functional > difference between the three categories and the three universes??? > > 4] The fact that these three are the ’three correlates' doesn’t mean that > each has any capacity to exist ‘as itself’. Distinguishing them, > analytically, from each other within a relationship is conceptually not > the same as proving that each is existing ‘in itself’. I disagree that > when we are speaking of the ‘interpretant’ we are speaking of it ‘itself’. > Again, the interpretant functions only as a form of information > within interaction - and that differs according to the type of > Interpretant [ Immediate, dynamic, Final] and its modal category. > > 5]ET - I’ve explained my rejection of your placing the Final Interpretant > before the S-Id in another post, with an example, and an outline of what I > consider the functional role of the FI - in today’s posts. > > 6] ET: To say that the semiotic process is a cognitive process is hardly > outside the Peircean framework, but, in my view, is basic. After all- as > I’ve quoted so often, from Peirce, “Thought is not necessarily connected > with a brain. It appears in the work of bees, of crystals and throughout > the purely physical world”. 4.551. That is, cognition does not require a > separate brain. Therefore, even a semiosic triad operating in total > Secondness, is a ‘cognitive act, based on the nature of the materials of > the interaction [eg, a Dicent Sinsign, a weathervane’. > > 7] ET: I fully agree - nothing is independent of semiosis and I don’t > think I have ever argued for such a view. > > 8] ET: Again - I have often quoted this section and fully agree. Please > note - ’signs’ is plural. > > 9] ET: My discussion has primarily been around your positioning of the > Final Interpretant before the Dynamic and Immediate Interpretants - In my > post of today, I outlined what I consider to be the function of the FI - > and note that it is not always part of the semiosic action. > > 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.
