As usual - we are going nowhere very quickly….I’ll try one more time. 1] No- whether or not your or my interpretations of Peirce are valid is not the same as whether your interpretation of Robert Marty’s paper is valid.The difference is that Peirce is not around to critique your outline. Robert Marty, fortunately, is - and he wrote that “Your use of the podium…is completely bizarre’…etc.
2] I simply don’t understand your reduction of determination to a dyad, where you wrote 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.”O->S. And S->I This reductionism of the Peircean triad to two dyads ..doesn’t make any sense to me. The focus is on triadic relations. Marty, referring to Peirce, writes in the abstract: And, “a priori, he defines the Representamen, then the sign, as a particular representamen which the Interpertant can realize in a mind. He thus incorporates it into the a posteriori…” Now, the way I understand this, again, is an outline of two different methods of TRIADIC information processing within semiosis. Why are there two different methods? I think to not merely have semiosis as a linear act of moving data from site A to B, but of examining how information and Mind grow and develop. Habits grow. The cognitive: where the “First Correlate may be regarded as determining the Third Correlate” 2.241. The first correlate is the S/R and the third is the Interpretant; the Object is the Second Correlate. This is an a priori or conceptual model. ..in that this is an explanation of mental processes. Actually the way I see this order is:S/R->I->O. Though Marty defines it as SR->O->I, to emphasize; the existential action that takes over via the other process, the communicative process. This cognitive process enables this Interpretant meaning to move as feedback to the Object to further define and redefine the Object AND the Sign and their knowledge content…such that this new meaning can, in the future, affect the knowledge stock of the Sign. [via the other pattern of triadic processing]... This is how knowledge develops, how habits emerge and develop, how evolution takes place. Note that the R/S is the first correlate in the triad. The existential triadic process: is an individual act of communication of information, where the Sign/Representamen becomes ‘a medium of communication [Marty p 23]..and “so as to place the sign between the Object and the Interpretant. In contrast, in the previous model, it was the Object that, as a second correlate occupied that position” p. 23]. The order of interaction is: O->S/R->I Here, the Interpretant is ‘determined by the Object’ …with the Object having also been affected by its semiotic experiences [ via the other method].. So- we won’t get anywhere in this discussion…and there’s not much point in continuing. Edwina > On Jun 25, 2025, at 6:33 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt <[email protected]> > wrote: > > 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] > <mailto:[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 from >> 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] >>> <mailto:[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 >>> <http://twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt> >>> On Wed, Jun 25, 2025 at 7:38 AM Edwina Taborsky <[email protected] >>> <mailto:[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] >>>>> <mailto:[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.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 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.
