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]> > 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.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 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.
