Edwina, List: ET: 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’.
I appreciate the honest admission. Evidently, the same is true for *any *application of Peirce's phaneroscopic categories--even where it is fully consistent with his own writings--other than your own narrow conception of them as "categorical modes" for sign classification, primarily employing his 1903 taxonomy. ET: 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. I am not positing any such thing. I am not talking about a "categorical mode" in which the interpretants are "operative." I am not talking about sign classification. Again, I am talking about a completely different but equally valid application of Peirce's phaneroscopic categories. ET: 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… So much for not commenting on Gary R.'s vectors. The point here is that once phaneroscopic analysis of the genuine triadic relation of mediating aligns the sign with 1ns, the object with 2ns, and the interpretant with 3ns, the directionality of the real and continuous process of semiosis--always from the object through the sign toward the interpretant--conforms to his vector of determination (2ns→1ns→3ns). ET: As I’ve pointed out, this is informationally and cognitively illogical. A representamen operating within the categorical mode of Firstness [quality, feeling, emotion] doesn’t have the cognitive content to produce a generality, a rule, a law [Thirdness]. Again, that is not what I am talking about *at all*. Again, I agree that a qualisign (sign itself is possible/1ns) cannot be an argument (sign's relation with its final interpretant is necessitant/3ns). ET: I don’t know that one can so readily also align the categories with a separate temporal framework. I have discussed this on the List before and in my paper on "Temporal Synechism" (https://rdcu.be/b9xVm)--just as the object (2ns) determines the sign (1ns) to determine the interpretant (3ns), the accomplished past (2ns) determines the nascent present (1ns) to determine the contingent future (3ns). This is yet another completely different but equally valid application of Peirce's phaneroscopic categories, fully consistent with his own writings. Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt / twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt On Wed, Jun 18, 2025 at 5:36 PM Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> wrote: > 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] t*he 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 >
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 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.
