JAS, list A further note
You support your use of Peirce’s terms he uses to refer to the nature of the categorical modes [ genuine, degenerate]..by saying that they ‘exactly match up with Robert Marty’s podium diagram. But he himself wrote you that your use of his podium in this manner was “completely bizarre”. You ignore his statement rejecting your claim. > On Jun 25, 2025, at 8:09 AM, Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> > wrote: > > 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.
