JAS, list 1] To say that you are reading Robert Marty’s paper correctly because he does not correct you promptly and publicly is not a validation for your reading his paper correctly. After all - using this fallacious argument of yours - he hasn’t corrected either your or my interpretation - so - which is it?
2] I was quoting Peirce with ’the first correlate determines the third’.. And - I disagree with your analysis, The second correlate , the object, in the cognitive movement, does not determine the first correfate [ the sign]. You are ignoring the development of knowledge within the Sign/Reprfesemtnamen, which comes with the development of the Third Correlate, the Interpretant. 3] You have not provided any reference to substantiate your claim that the two objects are genuine and degenerate, and the three interpetants are genuine and degenerate. To say - what else is there - is hardly evidence of anything. To use terms that Peirce uses only to refer to the categories is misleading. Peirce himself outlined the reason for the two objects [ one is external data, the other is internal to the sign-vehicle]…and the same with the Interpretants; internal and external. The final - is common. This has nothing to do with their ‘original purity’ - which presupposes that there should be an original purity of data. That’s not how semiosis works. I continue to disagree wit you. Edwina > On Jun 24, 2025, at 10:04 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Edwina, List: > > I expect Robert to correct me promptly and publicly if I am the one > misreading his paper, and I hope that he will do likewise if you are the one > misreading his paper. However, it is his prerogative to let our arguments > stand on their own, if that is his preference. > > You said earlier, "the first correlate, is the simplest, because it > determines all three." I pointed out that this is incorrect--the first > correlate (sign) only determines the third correlate (interpretant), while > the second correlate (object) determines the first correlate (sign). Again, > these are what Robert refers to as "two determinations" in section 2.3, > quoting EP 2:391 (1906) and bolding the key phrases. He indeed discusses a > priori and a posteriori throughout the paper, but not as "two determinations." > > In Peirce's 1903 speculative grammar, the sign does not determine the object, > and the object does not determine the interpretant. As Robert notes, he did > not start using the term "determines" in this way until 1905. Moreover, the > second and third trichotomies are not for the object itself and the > interpretant itself, they are for the sign's relation to its (dynamical) > object and the sign's relation to its (final) interpretant. The sign > logically constrains the sign-object relation, which logically constrains the > sign-interpretant relation; that is why the three trichotomies yield ten sign > classes instead of 27. > > As for one sign having two objects and three interpretants, I ask again--if > not genuine, genuine/degenerate, and genuine/degenerate/doubly degenerate in > accordance with Peirce's phaneroscopic categories, what other basis would you > suggest for establishing that there are exactly these six correlates? Is it > just a coincidence that they precisely match up with Robert's podium diagram? > And I repeat, for the umpteenth time--this has nothing to do with the fact > that all the correlates and their external relations have their own > trichotomies of "categorical modes" (1ns/2ns/3ns) or universes > (possible/existent/necessitant). > > 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 6:03 PM Edwina Taborsky <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> 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 > _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ > 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.
