Robert, List:
I appreciate this respectful clarification of our disagreement. What you
perceive as confusion is, on the contrary, a deliberate distinction that I
am making between two completely different but equally valid applications
of Peirce's three categories as illustrated by your podium diagram. There
is no associated aporia, because the only result of phaneroscopic analysis
of the *genuine triadic relation* of mediating that has any bearing
whatsoever on classifying *individual signs* in accordance with various
trichotomies for its constituent correlates and relations is establishing
that any *one *sign has *two* objects and *three *interpretants. It
explains *why *there are exactly these six correlates--they are not
arbitrary.
In my view, it also suggests that the proper order of the three
interpretant trichotomies is from genuine to degenerate to doubly
degenerate, i.e., the final ("destinate") interpretant determines
(logically constrains) the dynamical ("effective") interpretant, which
determines (logically constrains) the immediate ("explicit") interpretant.
Again, I am well aware that you (and others) instead align "destinate" with
immediate and "explicit" with final. Either way, each of the six correlates
can indeed be in any of the three universes (or "categorical modes"),
resulting in 28 sign classes (not 729) in accordance with the passage that
you quoted (EP 2:481).
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian
www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt / twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
On Thu, Jun 19, 2025 at 8:37 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
> Interpretantwhich determines the Effective Interpretantwhich determines the
> Explicit Interpretantthe 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://martyrobert.academia.edu/ <https://martyrobert.academia.edu/>*
>
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
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.
