Robert, List, JAS, Thank you, Robert, for your clear and ‘textually grounded’ outline of the Peircean framework - and where JAS has misinterpreted it. …which is, in my view, to confuse the ordinal interaction of the three correlates of the Triad, with the universal categories.
And I agree with Robert - that I don’t wish to revive these endless and fruitless debates [ which are not discussions but debates]..and so - won’t further comment. Edwina > On Jun 19, 2025, at 9:37 AM, robert marty <[email protected]> wrote: > > Dear Jon, > I do not wish to revive such endless and fruitless debates. I will therefore > not respond further after this. For the sake of clarity and conciseness, I > will reduce my response to the essentials. > > 1. You do not address the heart of my criticism, which concerns the confusion > you make between: > on the one hand, Peirce's concept of complexity, which distinguishes within > each correlative of the 27 possible triads which one (or ones) is less > complex, i.e., which one (or ones) has the least categorical membership in > the order (Firstness, Secondness, Thirdness) represented by the sequence of > numbers 1, 2, 3 (an isomorphic order relation), and > on the other hand, a very personal notion of complexity, which consists in > declaring that in the well-known six-element sign, the sign itself, which > appears once, is less complex than the pair formed by the two objects, which > is less complex than the triplet formed by the three interpretants. That > there are two objects and three interpretants in this sign is a naive > observation that anyone can make without invoking universal categories a > priori. > However, in support of this conception, you deploy a strategic skill by > evoking my own work through my proposal of a podium illustrating, thanks to a > 3D diagram perspective, the relationships between the notions of authentic > and degenerate categories as defined by Peirce. The diagram accurately shows, > by means of concentric rings “cut” by cylinders, how these distinctions are > arranged and, it should be remembered, they do not define new categories, > they only show that inter-category involvements (cylinders) produce > distinguishable occurrences (in rings). > 2. Your use of the podium in asserting that “illustrates this quite clearly, > with sign = 1, dynamical object = 2, immediate object = 1/2, final > interpretant = 3, dynamical interpretant = 2/3, and immediate interpretant = > 1/2/3” is completely bizarre and, whatever you may say, leads to an aporia. > It turns out that semiotics is not relevant at all in this article, in which > the word “sign” appears for the first time on page 26. Furthermore, > according to the notations you borrow from me and given what they represent, > I read that, according to you, “sign = 1” means that the sign is an element > of the Firstness category, a Priman element; the two objects, “dynamical > object = 2, immediate object = 1/2” are both Secundans (the second being > degenerate, but still secondan) and the same is true for the three > interpretants, which are all Tertians: “final interpretant = 3, dynamical > interpretant = 2/3 ( 3, degenerate at 1st degree, first ring) , and > immediate interpretant = 1/2/3” (3, degenerate at 2d degree, 2d ring). If I > restore the order of the determinations that you omitted, this leads to the > assignment of all 6-adic signs to a single class, which would be the class “2 > --> 2 --> 1 -->3 --> 3 -->3”, an impossible class because 1 cannot determine > 3: > > "It is evident that a possible can determine nothing but a Possible,it is > equally so that a Necessitant can be determined by nothing but a Necessitant. > 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 > the six trichotomies, instead of determining 729 classes of signs, as they > would if they were independent, only yield 28 classes." , (Letter to Lady > Welby, 1908, December, 23) > > These determinations are essential because without them there can be no > control of the combinatorial explosion... > I don't think I'll convince you, but I'll have tried... > > Best regards, > > Robert Marty > Honorary Professor ; PhD Mathematics ; PhD Philosophy > fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Marty > <https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Marty> > https://martyrobert.academia.edu/ > > > > Le mer. 18 juin 2025 à 18:44, Jon Alan Schmidt <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> a écrit : >> Robert, List: >> >> I find your post rather puzzling because it alleges a mistake on my part but >> then goes on to confirm exactly what I said--the sign is the simplest >> correlate (genuine only), the object is of middling complexity (genuine and >> degenerate), and the interpretant is the most complex (genuine, degenerate, >> and doubly degenerate). Your own podium diagram >> (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/352641475_The_Podium_of_Universal_Categories_and_their_degenerate_cases) >> illustrates this quite clearly, with sign = 1, dynamical object = 2, >> immediate object = 1/2, final interpretant = 3, dynamical interpretant = >> 2/3, and immediate interpretant = 1/2/3. As I see it, the bottom level >> corresponds to possibility, with the immediate object and immediate >> interpretant both internal to the general sign type; the middle level >> corresponds to actuality, with the dynamical object and dynamical >> interpretant logically constraining the immediate object and immediate >> interpretant, respectively (below), and individual sign tokens producing >> individual dynamical interpretants; and the top level corresponds to >> necessity, with the final interpretant--the effect that the sign would >> produce under ideal circumstances, e.g., after infinite inquiry by an >> infinite community--logically constraining the dynamical interpretant >> (below). >> >> <image.png> >> >> This is a perfectly valid application of Peirce's phaneroscopic categories, >> although completely different from his trichotomies for sign >> classification--three in 1903, yielding ten classes; and ten in 1906-8, >> yielding 66 classes. As you rightly note, using just the six trichotomies >> for the correlates and omitting the four for their external relations yields >> 28 classes, although we have disagreed in the past about the proper logical >> order of the three interpretant trichotomies. There is no need to reiterate >> that dispute because I have come to agree with James Liszka that Peirce's >> increasingly granular taxonomies reflect a "reductionist approach to sign >> analysis that loses the holistic and integrative aspects of its triadic >> character," and "the remedy is to re-emphasize the processual and functional >> view of semiosis" (https://doi.org/10.1515/sem-2018-0089). That is why I >> stress its continuity in accordance with Peirce's late topical conception >> (https://philpapers.org/archive/SCHPTC-2.pdf)--the continuous whole (3ns) is >> ontologically prior to its parts, which are indefinite material parts (1ns) >> until they are deliberately marked off as discrete actual parts (2ns) for >> some purpose. Hence, as I mentioned yesterday, each individual sign, its two >> objects, and its three interpretants are entia rationis--artifacts of >> analysis that we prescind from the real and ongoing process. >> >> 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 4:15 AM robert marty <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>> Dear Jon Allan, >>> You are making an apparent mistake regarding the concept of complexity. In >>> fact, in the context of phenomenology, it has always been closely linked to >>> universal categories from the very beginning, as can be seen as early as >>> 1883: >>> >>> As to the three universal categories, as I call them, perhaps with no very >>> good reason for thinking that they are more universal than the others, we >>> first notice that Secondness and Thirdness are conceptions of complexity. >>> (CP 1.526) >>> >>> Firstness, given its monadic character, is the least complex, Thirdness the >>> most complex, and Secondness is of intermediate complexity. Peirce uses >>> precisely this ordering of complexities in the research he outlines in his >>> fifth lecture at the Lowell Institute in November 1903. The corresponding >>> manuscript (MS 540) begins with this sentence: “The principles and >>> analogies of Phenomenology enable us to describe, in a distant way, what >>> the divisions of triadic relations must be.” He goes on to apply these >>> principles using the concept of nature, which encompasses and orders >>> possible complexities. A priori, each of the correlates of a triadic >>> relation is likely to belong to one of the three categories, in other >>> words, to be more or less complex. In each of the 3 x 3 x 3 = 27 possible >>> combinations of three abstract correlates, Peirce is therefore able to >>> distinguish which is the least complex, i.e., the one whose nature is the >>> simplest, which will be the First Correlate (CP 235). The Third Correlate >>> is the most complex, which will be the one whose nature is the most complex >>> (CP 236), and the remaining correlate is the Second Correlate (CP 2.237). >>> He announces—without justification—the conclusion of his research: the ten >>> classes of triadic relations. I will soon publish a chapter that details >>> the path he took. I have entrusted the tedious combinatorial part to >>> artificial intelligence, placing the reader in the position of a spectator >>> of this construction, which should facilitate communication. >>> >>> >>> The misinterpretation is therefore evident in your use of complexity when >>> you write: >>> >>> “Peirce realized within the next year or two that this results in any one >>> sign (simplest) having two objects (middling complexity) and three >>> interpretants (most complex), each of which—along with their external >>> relations—can belong to any of the three universes (possible, existent, >>> necessitating) that correspond to his categories.” >>> >>> The fact that there are two objects and three interpretants in this new >>> approach to semiotics, with one sign, two objects, and three interpretants, >>> may appear to be a complication of the triadic model. Still, in itself, it >>> is a notion completely foreign to the previous one. The proof is that you >>> rightly consider that each of these six objects can be affected by a >>> “phenomenological nature” (which will be six degrees), which, as in the >>> triadic case, leads to a reduction in the number of valid signs—to 28 >>> classes instead of 729—a result that I have long systematized by other >>> means. >>> >>> Best regards, >>> >>> Robert Marty >>> >>> Honorary Professor; PhD Mathematics; PhD Philosophy >>> fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Marty >>> <https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Marty> >>> https://martyrobert.academia.edu/ >> _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ >> ARISBE: THE PEIRCE GATEWAY is now at >> https://cspeirce.com <https://cspeirce.com/> and, just as well, at >> https://www.cspeirce.com <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] >> <mailto:[email protected]> . >> ► To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message NOT to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] >> <mailto:[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 <https://cspeirce.com/> and, just as well, at > https://www.cspeirce.com <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] > <mailto:[email protected]> . > ► To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message NOT to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] > <mailto:[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.
