Edwina, List: I *did not* say that I am reading Robert's paper correctly *because *he does not correct me promptly and publicly. I said that I *expected *him to do so, *if* I was reading it incorrectly, but *also *that it was his prerogative *not *to do so. Again, should he choose not to weigh in either way, our arguments must stand or fall on their own merits, as usual.
I *acknowledged *that you were quoting Peirce with "the first correlate determines the third," and that this is *correct*--the sign (first correlate) determines the interpretant (third correlate). However, you were *not *quoting Peirce with "the first correlate, is the simplest, because it determines all three," and this is *incorrect*--the sign *does not* determine the object, it is the other way around, the object determines the sign. Again, these are the "two determinations" in section 2.3 of Robert's paper. I have repeatedly explained my *reasoning *for viewing one sign having exactly two objects and exactly three interpretants as being established *a priori* in accordance with Peirce's *phaneroscopic principles*. I have never claimed that he *explicitly stated* that the dynamical/immediate objects are genuine/degenerate and the final/dynamical/immediate interpretants are genuine/degenerate/doubly degenerate. I am well aware that Robert disagrees with my application of his podium diagram in this manner, and now I understand that he instead views one sign having exactly two objects and exactly three interpretants as being established *a posteriori*. As I just said in my previous post, I will be giving the matter some further thought accordingly. 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 7:38 AM Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 > >
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 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.
