JAS, list I think it's up to Robert Marty to inform me if I am misreading his paper. Not you.
1] Nor am I saying that his ’two determinations’ are ’the sign determining both of the other two correlates'. I am referring to his clear outline of an a priori determination and an a posteriori determination. You seem to ignore this analysis. These are as he outlines: - a priori : This is a cognitive movement, involving Mind or Quasi Mind from the First correlate [ the Sign/Representamen] becoming activated..to interact with the Object [ which is providing the data stimulus which the Mind picks up]..and moving on to arrive at the Meaning, the Interpretant. This is the cognitive processing from S/R->O->I. - a posteriori- this is the informational movement of data from the Object via the mediating Sign/Representamen, to the Interpretant. This is strictly about the movement and transformation of data from O->R/S-I. You are ignoring this analysis of TWO determinations - a priori and a posteriori. 2] Your opinion that there is a genuine object and a degenerate object has no basis, as far as I know, in any of Peirce’s work. The terms ‘genuine’ and ‘degenerate’ are used by Peirce to refer to the categorical modes, where, for example, there is a pure quantitative Secondness [2-2] Secondness operating totally within reactive brute force; this is defined as ‘genuine’. And a qualitative Secondness [2-1] which is Secondness operating within the ambiguity and lack of measurable clarity found in Firstness. The same can be found within Thirdness [ 3-3, which is genuine abstract generality] and 3-2 [ which is a degenerate generality of indexical connection] and 3-1 which is a double degenerate generality of iconic generality. . I totally disagree with your moving this account of the categories, in their genuine and degenerate modes, into defining the three Interpretants. After all- your doing so denies the fact that the full set of Interpretants can be in any one of the categorical modes..And certainly, the S/R can function in any of these three modes of Thirdness! Edwina . > On Jun 24, 2025, at 6:16 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Edwina, List: > > You are evidently misreading Robert's paper. His "two determinations" are not > the sign determining both of the other two correlates, they are the object > determining the sign and the sign determining the interpretant--just as I > said. You and Robert correctly quote Peirce saying that "the First Correlate > [sign] may be regarded as determining the Third Correlate [interpretant] in > some respect" (CP 2.241, EP 2:290, 1903). However, Peirce does not say that > the First Correlate [sign] determines the Second Correlate [object] in any > respect. On the contrary, Robert also correctly quotes him (with the key > phrases bolded) saying that the sign "is determined by the object, but in no > other respect than goes to enable it to act upon the interpreting quasi mind" > (EP 2:391, 1906). In other words, the object determines the sign to determine > the interpretant. > > As for the dynamical/immediate objects being genuine/degenerate, and the > final/dynamical/immediate interpretants being genuine/degenerate/doubly > degenerate, what other basis would you suggest for establishing that there > are exactly two objects and three interpretants? Is it just a coincidence > that they precisely match up with Robert's podium diagram? I think that the > dynamical object and the final interpretant being what Peirce simply calls > "the object" and "the interpretant" in his 1903 taxonomy--we know this > because in his later ones, icon/index/symbol is the trichotomy according the > the sign's relation with its dynamical object, and rheme/dicisign/argument is > the trichotomy according to the sign's relation with its final > interpretant--is very strong evidence for them being the genuine object and > the genuine interpretant. > > For the degenerate interpretants, I have pointed out before that according to > Peirce, "Taking any class in whose essential idea the predominant element is > 3ns, 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 3ns or > 3ns of the lesser degree of degeneracy, and a relatively qualitative 3ns or > 3ns of the last degeneracy" (EP 2:162, 1903). As I see it, the dynamical > interpretant is a relatively reactional interpretant because it is any actual > effect of the sign, and thus external to the sign; while the immediate > interpretant is a relatively qualitative interpretant because it is the range > of possible effects of the sign, and thus internal to the sign. > > On the other hand, reaction corresponds to genuine 2ns, which is another > reason for taking the dynamical object to be the genuine object--it is "the > Reality which by some means contrives to determine the Sign to its > Representation" (CP 4.536, 1906), and thus external to the sign. According to > Peirce, "Category the Second has a Degenerate Form, in which there is 2ns > indeed, but a weak or Secondary 2ns that ... belongs to it only in a certain > respect" (EP 2:160, 1903). Likewise, the immediate object "is the Object as > the Sign itself represents it, and whose Being is thus dependent upon the > Representation of it in the Sign" (ibid.), i.e., no sign represents its > dynamical object in every respect, only "in a certain respect" that is > internal to the sign as its immediate object. > > Regards, > > Jon > > On Tue, Jun 24, 2025 at 12:17 PM Edwina Taborsky <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> JAS, list >> >> I disagree. I note that in Robert Marty’s paper, p 22, Section 2.3, in which >> he discusses Two determinations in the mature sign’ , he provides the >> quotation “In every genuine Triadic Relation, the First Correlate may be >> regarded as determining the Third Correlate in some respect…2.241. >> >> And I absolutely disagree with your view that the Repesentamen/Sign is >> ’simple’ because there is only one correlate. According to you - for some >> reason, you have defined the fact that there are two objects as one being >> ‘genuine and the other being ‘degenerate’. What evidence do you have for >> this? And you fdeine the three Interpretants as one being ‘genuine, the >> other two as various stages of ‘degenerate’. Again - what’s your evidence? . >> >> You obviously disagree with Robert Marty’s outline and analysis - of the two >> determinations… and I agree with his analysis. >> >> Edwina >>> On Jun 24, 2025, at 12:59 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt <[email protected] >>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>> >>> Edwina, List: >>> >>> ET: I also note that, in my view, Peirce’s analysis of the simple, middling >>> complexity and most complex nature of the three correlates [2.235-6-7] >>> refers to their position in the a priori correlate order of determination. >>> where the Representamen, the first correlate, is the simplest, because it >>> determines all three. >>> >>> On the contrary, in Peirce's speculative grammar, the designation of the >>> sign/object/interpretant as the first/second/third correlates is not an >>> order of determination, it is an order of complexity. The sign is the first >>> (simplest) correlate because it has no degenerate correlate, the >>> (dynamical) object is the second (middling) correlate because it has only >>> one degenerate correlate (immediate), and the interpretant is the third >>> (most complex) correlate because it has two degenerate correlates >>> (dynamical and immediate). As I have said before, this is the result of >>> phaneroscopic analysis of the genuine triadic relation of representing or >>> (more generally) mediating in accordance with Peirce's universal >>> categories, as very helpfully illustrated by Robert's podium diagram. It >>> indeed has nothing to do with his taxonomies of sign classes that employ >>> trichotomies of "categorical modes" (1ns/2ns/3ns) or universes >>> (possible/existent/necessitant) for the correlates and their relations, >>> other than establishing that there are exactly these six correlates. >>> >>> The sign as the first correlate does not determine the object as the second >>> correlate, although it does determine the interpretant as the third >>> correlate. Instead, the object as the second correlate determines the sign >>> as the first correlate. In other words, semiosis always proceeds in >>> accordance with Gary Richmond's vector of determination (2ns→1ns→3ns). As >>> Peirce himself puts it ... >>> >>> CSP: I will say that a sign is anything, of whatsoever mode of being, which >>> mediates between an object and an interpretant; since it is both determined >>> by the object relatively to the interpretant, and determines the >>> interpretant in reference to the object, in such wise as to cause the >>> interpretant to be determined by the object through the mediation of this >>> "sign." The object and the interpretant are thus merely the two correlates >>> of the sign; the one being antecedent, the other consequent of the sign. >>> (EP 2:410, 1907) >>> >>> Incorporating the degenerate correlates ... >>> >>> CSP: 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. (EP 2:481, 1908) >>> >>> Here, "determines" means "logically constrains" in accordance with the >>> first sentence, which is why these six trichotomies yield 28 sign classes >>> instead of 729; and again, there is longstanding disagreement about whether >>> destinate=final and explicit=immediate (as I maintain), or >>> destinate=immediate and explicit=final. >>> >>> 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 Tue, Jun 24, 2025 at 11:34 AM Edwina Taborsky <[email protected] >>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>>> Further to my comments on the a priori determination and the a posteriori >>>> determination - these seem to me to acknowledge the two different roles of >>>> MIND and EXPERIENCE. >>>> >>>> The a priori determination process acknowledges that any entity - and I’d >>>> include, as does Peirce, protoplasm’ - has a mind-determined or rational >>>> interaction with the world. Or further..’an intelligence capable of >>>> learning by experience’ 2.227. 1897. And as Peirce has always noted about >>>> habits - they grow. An organism capable of learning [ even without a >>>> separate brain] can thus adapt, can evolve in its cognitive interactions >>>> with its environment [ Objects] and its functional use of them >>>> {interpretants]. >>>> >>>> Therefore Mind or quasi-Mind- is the first correlate…and picks up data >>>> from the Object[s] with which it THEN is in an a posteriori communicative >>>> interaction. >>>> >>>> Again - this First Correlate - as the First - has NOTHING to do with >>>> either there being only one correlate as the Repesentamen-Sign, or its >>>> being in a categorical mode of Firstness. It is often in a categorical >>>> mode of Secondness or Thirdness. It is a reference to the role of Mind, as >>>> Robert has clearly shown, ..’the a priori world of mathematics and the >>>> contingent world of experience [ quote from Nathan Houser 1989, p21]. The >>>> world of mathematics is a property or action of Mind/quasi-Mind. >>>> >>>> Edwina >>>>> On Jun 24, 2025, at 9:59 AM, Edwina Taborsky <[email protected] >>>>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Robert, list >>>>> >>>>> Thank you for your paper. I cannot comment on the use of AI - but am >>>>> focused, specifically, on your outline of 2.3. Two Determinations in the >>>>> mature sign. Now - this is, in my view, very important. TWO >>>>> determinations. >>>>> >>>>> 1] There is, as you outline, the a priori set of triadic relations, >>>>> where the First Correlate is the Representamen, the Second is the Object >>>>> and the Third is the Interpretant. 2.241.; 2.242. >>>>> >>>>> So- the Order is: Sign-Representamen/Object/Interpretant. This seems to >>>>> correlate with the categories, such that a correlate in Firstness can >>>>> only determine other correlates in the same mode… A correlate in >>>>> Thirdness can determine correlates in the same or ‘lesser’ modes. 2.235. >>>>> This analysis is abstract rather than referring to actual ‘ens’. >>>>> >>>>> 2] Then, in 1905, Peirce added another role for the sign/representamen, >>>>> an a posteriori analysis...as a ‘medium of communication’, and the order >>>>> of determination is >>>>> Object->Sign/Repesentamren-> Interpretant. >>>>> >>>>> And, as you point out, it is important as Peirce did, to distinguish >>>>> between the a posteriori and a priori forms of knowledge. >>>>> They do not contradict each other; they instead, refer to different >>>>> aspects of the semiosic process - but- they work together. >>>>> >>>>> 3] I also note that , in my view, Peirce’s analysis of the ’simple, >>>>> middling complexity and most complex nature of the three correlates [ >>>>> 2.235-6-7] refers to their position in the a priori correlate order of >>>>> determination. where >>>>> - the Represetnamen, the first correlate,is the simplest, because it >>>>> determines all three. >>>>> - And the third correlate, the Interpretant, is the most complex “being a >>>>> law if any one of the three is a law, and not being a mere possibility >>>>> unless all three are of that nature ] 2.236]. Note: I point out that, the >>>>> reference to any one of the three or all three refers to the three >>>>> correlates, NOT three Interpretants] >>>>> >>>>> So far, in my reading, an excellent analysis- and I’m particularly >>>>> appreciative of the outline of the two determinations..ie..a priori and a >>>>> posteriori >>>>> >>>>> 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.
