Edwina, List: ET: You wrote: in an If-Then logical format, of “I expect Robert to correct me promptly and publicly IF I am the one misreading his paper”. The IF_Then format links the two. ..and this means that you can also logically conclude that IF you are reading his paper correctly, THEN, he won’t correct you.
No, your "logic" here is faulty. Let M = "I am misreading Robert's paper" and C = "Robert corrects me." My statement was "if M, then I expect C." Your claim is that this somehow entails "if not-M, then not-C," which is incorrect--especially since I *also *explicitly acknowledged that it was Robert's prerogative *not *to correct me, even if I *am *misreading his paper. ET: And arguments based on the reading of someone else’s paper don’t stand or fall on their own merits, because the arguments have to include a valid reading of another person’s paper. You and I have been offering competing arguments on various subjects based on our very different readings of Peirce's voluminous writings for nearly a decade now. In each case, whether my reading or yours is valid is precisely what we have been arguing about! The same now goes for Robert's paper. ET: You are missing the point of the Two determinations, of a priori and a posteriori You are missing the point that the two determinations in Robert's paper are not *a priori* and *a posteriori*, they are the object determining the sign and the sign determining the interpretant. ET: I still continue to disagree with your defining the Objects and Interpretants as genuine and degenerate. Not only did Peirce not ‘explicitly’ say this - but I don’t think he even implicitly said this. Again, I view one sign having exactly two objects and exactly three interpretants as being established *a priori* in accordance with Peirce's phaneroscopic principles. I do not expect you to agree, nor Robert now that I understand him to view it as being established *a posteriori* instead. Regards, Jon On Wed, Jun 25, 2025 at 1:02 PM Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> wrote: > JAS, list > > You are playing word games with your focus on ‘expect’. You wrote: in an > If-Then logical format, of “I expect Robert to correct me promptly and > publicly IF I am the one misreading his paper”. The IF_Then format links > the two. ..and this means that you can also logically conclude that IF you > are reading his paper correctly, THEN, he won’t correct you. > > And arguments based on the reading of someone else’s paper don’t stand or > fall on their own merits, because the arguments have to include a valid > reading of another person’s paper. > > You are missing the point of the Two determinations, of a priori and a > posteriori… where the a priori is the development of a* conceptual > predictive model* and the a posteriori is the individual experienced > activity that ‘verifies their adequacy to the same expereince’ [ Marty p 2] > . > > The a priori model, as I understand it, is based on Peirce 2.241, where > “The First Correlate may be regarded as determining the Third Correlate in > some respect and triadic relations may be divided according as that > determination of the Third Correlate is to having some quality or to being > in some existential relation to teh Second Correlate, or to being in some > relation of thought to the Second for something”. The determination path > is S/R->I->O. > > Now as I unpack the above - and I think Peirce outlines it also very > clearly in his example of the weather and his wife asking about the weather > - the First Correlate is the knowledge base, the S/R…and this knowledge > base most definitely determines what meaning the individual entity is going > to arrive at as the Interpretant! AND this meaning will also affect the > Object’s nature..within the a posteriori determination..Note - this is an > important path, for it also explains how the S/R or knowledge base develops > and evolves..and thus, also changes the individual Objects. It explains the > reality of evolution and adaptation. . > > The a posteriori action is the basic existential* informational movement > f*rom the Dynamic Object through the mediation of the S/R..to the Meaning > or Interpretant. The determination path is: O->S/R->I. I frankly don’t > think it’s as interesting or important as the a priori model!! > > I still continue to disagree with your defining the Objects and > Interpretants as genuine and degenerate. Not only didi Peirce not > ‘explicitly’ say this - [word games again?] b ut I don’t think he even > implicitly said this. Adn I don’t see the functionality - since it implies > a kind of teleological perfection…and I think that Peirce’s work is, above > all, focused on a reality that is self-generative andn complex [ ie, there > is no perfection]. > > Edwina > > On Jun 25, 2025, at 1:31 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt <[email protected]> > wrote: > > 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 > <http://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.
