Robert, List: I sincerely appreciate your response and will give the matter some further thought in accordance with it.
We evidently disagree about whether one sign having exactly two objects and exactly three interpretants is established *a priori* (my view) or *a posteriori* (your view, as I understand it). I suspect that at least part of that disagreement stems from having subtly different definitions of each correlate. You refer to the dynamical and immediate objects as "collective" and "particular," while I describe them as *external *and *internal *to the sign. You refer to the immediate and final interpretants as "first impressions" and "practical consequences," while I describe them as the sign's *possible *and *ideal *effects. It seems to me that you are focusing strictly on *human *semiosis, while I am generalizing in accordance with my hypothesis that *the entire universe* is a vast semiosic continuum. I also still disagree that seeing the dynamical/immediate objects as genuine/degenerate and the final/dynamical/immediate interpretants as genuine/degenerate/doubly degenerate "is foreign to Peirce's own conceptions" and "does not match when you look closely." I continue to maintain that it is a perfectly valid application of his phaneroscopic categories in accordance with your podium diagram. The bottom level corresponds to *possibility*--the sign itself (1), the immediate object (1/2), and the immediate interpretant (1/3), which is the range of effects that a sign type *could *have. The middle level corresponds to *actuality*--the dynamical object (2) and the dynamical interpretant (2/3), which is any effect that a sign token *does* have. The top level corresponds to *necessity*--the final interpretant (3), which is the effect that a sign *would *have under ideal circumstances, e.g., after infinite inquiry by an infinite community. Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt / twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt On Wed, Jun 25, 2025 at 4:11 AM robert marty <[email protected]> wrote: > Jon Alan wrote: > "*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?"* > > You ask a good question here, but you give the wrong answer. In fact, the > answer can only be the one that allowed the triadic signs to be classified, > i.e., their possible *natures*, given their ordering in 3 < 2 < 1. The > two objects and the three interpretants result from a more detailed > analysis based on observation, which distinguishes the collective object > (agreed upon by the community) from the particular object (which determines > the particular object formed by one of its members), each with its own > valid complexity; the sign remains the medium in the chain. The > interpretant that it determined in the triadic model is analyzed again in > three successive stages or moments: the first impressions of an interpreter > (is it, *for him,* at first glance, an object governed by a law, or only > an identifiable object, or even a vague, unanalyzable feeling); secondly, > the real effect on his psyche, which he experiences simply by perceiving > it; it can impose either the law, if that is the case, or an identified > object, or an impression (think of the Impressionists who tried to capture > this moment); or finally, the practical consequences of the case that has > imposed itself on his mind, which will affect his future behavior in a > world now populated, for him, by the object he has ultimately chosen. And > his choice, if it differs from the one that is collectively in use, may > eventually contribute to changing the collective world, but only very > slightly. However, it may be that, combined with others, certain changes in > the collective will occur (for example, lexical variations in languages, > entries and deletions in dictionaries). This is exactly what Peirce > explains in the following famous example: > > *"What sort of a day is it?" This is a sign, whose Object, as expressed, > is the weather at that time, but whose Dynamical Object is the impression > which I have presumably derived from peeping between the window-curtains. > Whose Interpretant, as expressed, is the quality of the weather, but whose > Dynamical Interpretant, is my answering her question. But beyond that, > there is a third Interpretant. The Immediate Interpretant is what the > Question expresses, all that it immediately expresses, which I have > imperfectly restated above. The Dynamical Interpretant is the actual effect > that it has upon me, its interpreter. But the Significance of it, the > Ultimate, or Final, Interpretant is her purpose in asking it, what effect > its answer will have as to her **plans for the ensuing day. I reply, let > us suppose: "It is a stormy day." Here is another sign. Its Immediate > Object is the notion of the present weather so far as this is common to her > mind and mine -- not the character of it, but the identity of it. The > Dynamical Object is the identity of the actual or Real meteorological > conditions at the moment. The Immediate Interpretant is the schema in her > imagination, i.e. the vague Image or what there is in common to the > different Images of a stormy day. The Dynamical Interpretant is the > disappointment or whatever actual effect it at once has upon her. The Final > Interpretant is the sum of the Lessons of the reply, Moral, Scientific, > etc." *(CP 8.314) > > There is no question of degenerate categories of any kind. Each element > selected is likely to have one of three natures, the ordering of which is > subject to the rules of successive determinations. Moreover, it is > impossible for these to be degenerate categories, since the latter are not > categories, but only partitions into 1, 2, or 3 parts of the extension of > each category's concept (the sets of Primans, Secundans, or Tertians). This > can be seen clearly in the podium diagram with, respectively, a circle with > two circular crowns, a circle and a circular crown, and a single circle. > The coincidence you see is purely formal and does not match when you look > closely. Moreover, it is foreign to Peirce's own conceptions. > > 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.
