Jon, List 1] I’m afraid I still don’t understand Gary R’s vectors and so won’t comment on them. I have read them many times..and don’t ‘get’ them’.
2]. The quotation you refer to refers only to the modal nature of Thirdness - either in its pure/genuine form [3-3] or operative within Secondness [3-2] or operative within Firstness [3-1]. This has nothing to do with the Interpretants. Therefore - I don’t agree with your positing - first - that the Interpretants are operative in the categorical mode of Thirdness. - I note that of the ten classes only ONE class has the Interpretants in Thirdness. In the other NINE classes, the Interpretant is either in a mode of Secondness or Firstness. 3]By the way- I note that in most Signs [ understand the capitalized Sign as the irreducible triad of Object-Representamen-Interpretant] …there is not always a Final Interpretant…But , and however.. I totally disagree with Gary R’s, as you outline it - ‘vector of determination’ …with its direct aligning the semiosic data movement of Object->Representamen->Interpretant..with the categorical movement of 2ns->1ns->3ns… As I’ve pointed out, this is informationally and cognitively illogical. A represent amen operating within the categorical mode of Firstness [ quality, feeling, emotion] doesn’t have the cognitive content to produce a generality, a rule, a law [ Tjhirdness]. And such a path [2ns-1ns-3ns] certainly isn’t found in the Peircean ten or other classes!! Also- I don’t know that one can so readily also align the categories with a separate temporal framework. I can understand Firstness, certainly, as ‘present time’, and Secondness, with its differentiation of this’ from that..enables, history and the past..but these differentiations can also occur in the Present. [Secondness contains Firstness anyway]. As for Thirdness - I see it as continuity rather than Future..but..I don’t think this is the real problem..which remains, as I see it - the confusion. between ordinal movement [ First,Second, Third] with the categorical modes. Adn as I’ve said - I see TWO movements : 1] the data movement…where data moves fromthe Dynamic Object..through the mediative Representamen..to result in the Interpretant;and 2] The Cognitive movement…where data is picked up by the receptor Representamen from the external world [Dynamic Object]…and is processed by this Representamen..to produce the Interpretant. Teh Cognitive moment begins,[1] therefore with the REpresentamen,which is the cognitive agency in the triad….and its gathers data froth Object [2] to [3] produce teh Interpretant. This an ordinal process… Edwina > On Jun 18, 2025, at 6:05 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Edwina, List: > > The "categorical modes" in which the different semiosic correlates "operate" > are a specific application of Peirce's phaneroscopic categories of > 1ns/2ns/3ns. There is a trichotomy of possible/existent/necessitant for each > correlate and external relation, and once these are arranged in the proper > order to classify an individual sign, the viable options are logically > constrained in accordance with Gary Richmond's vector of analysis/involution > (3ns→2ns→1ns). Hence, I agree that in Peirce's 1903 taxonomy, a qualisign > obviously cannot be an argument. However, recognizing that any one sign has > two objects and three interpretants is a completely different but equally > valid application of Peirce's phaneroscopic categories of 1ns/2ns/3ns. In his > own words ... > > 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) > > For every sign, there is a trichotomy of interpretants--"relatively genuine" > (final), "relatively reactional" (dynamical), and "relatively qualitative" > (immediate). In my view, the proper order of these for the classification of > signs is likewise in accordance with Gary's vector of analysis/involution > (3ns→2ns→1ns)--the final ("destinate") interpretant logically constrains the > dynamical ("effectual") interpretant, which logically constrains the > immediate ("explicit") interpretant; I am well aware that you and Robert > (among others) disagree. On the other hand, the real and continuous flow of > semiosis is always in accordance with Gary's vector of determination > (2ns→1ns→3ns)--from the object through the sign toward the interpretant, > isomorphic with the flow of time from the past through the present toward the > future. > > 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 Wed, Jun 18, 2025 at 12:23 PM Edwina Taborsky <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> I don’t think that Robert Marty’s post was referring to the number of >> correlates in the semiosic triad, which is one of two explanations offered >> by JAS for the terms of First, Second andThird, in Pierce’s quotation. >> >> Marty was referring to the functional nature of the categories within the >> six correlates [ DO,IO,R, II,DI, FI]. The categories refer to Firstness, >> Secondness [ both genuine and degenerate] and Thirdness [ both genuine and >> two degenerate]. >> >> And this obviously differs from the claim by JAS that these terms of First, >> Second, Third, also refer to the categories - which would set up a semeiotic >> triad of O-R-I as operating in the categorical modes of…in the same linear >> path.. Secondness-> Firstness->Thirdness - a logical impossibility, since >> Firstness cannot produce a result operative within Thirdness!!! It simply >> doesn’thav thecogntiive capacity to produce such a result! How can data from >> the Represetnamen, operating, in the mode of Firstness or Quality, FEELiNG, >> EMOTioN..produce a resultant meaning in the Inerpretant within the mode of >> Thirdness or MIND,ANALYsis.THoUGHT!! Obviously - it can’t. >> >> 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 [email protected] . > ► To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message NOT to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] with > UNSUBSCRIBE PEIRCE-L in the SUBJECT LINE of the message and nothing in the > body. More at https://list.iu.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 [email protected] . ► To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message NOT to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] with UNSUBSCRIBE PEIRCE-L in the SUBJECT LINE of the message and nothing in the body. More at https://list.iu.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.
