Robert, Ulysses, List: RM: I want to point out that what you're doing is creating a new semiotic object with six correlates: one sign, two objects, and three interpretants.
This is not "creating a new semiotic object," it is performing phaneroscopic analysis of the three genuine correlates of the genuine triadic relation of *mediating *to establish that its first/simplest correlate (sign) has no degeneracy, its second/middling correlate (dynamical object) has one degree of degeneracy (immediate), and its third/most complex correlate (final interpretant) has two degrees of degeneracy (dynamical and immediate). In Peirce's words, "2ns is an essential part of 3ns though not of 1ns, and 1ns is an essential element of both 2ns and 3ns. Hence there is such a thing as the 1ns of 2ns and such a thing as the 1ns of 3ns; and there is such a thing as the 2ns of 3ns" (CP 1.530, 1903)--exactly what your podium diagram illustrates. RM: So when we classify the 6-ads, we'll start with the following six possible combinations of natures (in reverse order): 3 3, 3 2¸ 3 1, 2 2, 2 1, 1 1 Question: Are we going to say that, in each couple, the first element is authentic and the second degenerate? Of the six correlates, three are genuine (not "authentic") and three are degenerate. In your notation here, the first designation identifies the correlate and the second designation identifies the degree of degeneracy--3 3 is the genuine (final) interpretant, 3 2 is the degenerate (dynamical) interpretant, 3 1 is the doubly degenerate (immediate) interpretant, 2 2 is the genuine (dynamical) object, 2 1 is the degenerate (immediate) object, and 1 1 is the sign. RM: If you continue, how will you control the combinatorial explosion and ultimately reduce the number of classes of hexadic signs from 729 to 28? Again, that is a *completely different* application of Peirce's categories. Each of the six correlates can be in *any *of the three universes (possible/existent/necessitant), but once those six trichotomies are arranged in the proper order, the feasible universe(s) for each correlate is logically constrained by those that precede it in accordance with the rule of determination--"It is evident that a Possible can determine nothing but a Possible; it is equally so that a Necessitant can be determined by nothing but a Necessitant" (EP 2:481, 1908 Dec 23)--yielding 28 sign classes instead of 729. If the dynamical object is a possible, then the other five correlates are also possibles; and if the explicit interpretant is a necessitant, then the other five correlates are also necessitants. Presumably, we still disagree about whether the explicit interpretant is the immediate interpretant (my view) or the final interpretant (your view). Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt / twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt On Fri, Jun 27, 2025 at 12:08 PM robert marty <[email protected]> wrote: > Ulysses, List, > > This is the core of the matter: > > *"**Why would the Sign (the First Correlate) not have any differentiable > subtypes, the Object (the Second Correlate) have two different subtypes > (Immediate and Dynamic), and the Interpretant (the Third Correlate) have > three subtypes (Immediate, Dynamic, and Final) if there were not some > phaneroscopic reason for mapping number of subtypes to Correlate number*?" > > I want to point out that what you're doing is creating a new semiotic > object with six correlates: one sign, two objects, and three interpretants. > You'll see it appear in Peirce's MS by consulting the chronology of sign > definitions I've identified: > https://cspeirce.com/rsources/76defs/76defs.htm, from definition 32, the > most significant being, I think, definition 40f. So we're no longer > talking about 3-ad but 6-ad (or hexad). > > > > Your thesis (which is also Jon-Alan Schmidt's) is that there are two > subtypes of Object and three subtypes of interpretant, respectively, one > authentic and degenerate, and authentic, first-degree degenerate, and > second-degree degenerate. I read that you are looking for phaneroscopic > reasons to map "the *number of *subtypes". But there's no need for > phaneroscopy for that, a child who can count to 3 can do it. However, you > think you're using phaneroscopy by identifying, for example, with regard to > the Object, the "authentic" from the "dynamic", the "degenerate" from the > "immediate", and you do the same for the interpreters. I admit, although I > dispute (I will later) that the two subtypes are constituents of the new > sign whose "phaneroscopy" can be taken into account, as it has been taken > into account for each of the three constituents of the triadic sign. I > admit that the dynamic (authentic) vs. immediate (degenerate) order is a > natural order. So when we classify the 6-ads, we'll start with the > following six possible combinations of natures (in reverse order): > > > > 3 3, 3 2¸ 3 1, 2 2, 2 1, 1 1 > > Question: Are we going to say that, in each couple, the first element is > authentic and the second degenerate? That's nonsense, it's an antilogy. > I'll pass on the triplets of possible interpretants to you. If you > continue, how will you control the combinatorial explosion and ultimately > reduce the number of classes of hexadic signs from 729 to 28? > > Consequently, I think, concerning your "all together"), I don't understand > that you evoke a triadic relation with notions such as a First that would > not exactly be a First but rather a relatively "firsty" Third, etc... > However, you now have six correlates, and if First and Third are still > correlates, what does this "first" in quotation marks with a lowercase > mean? > > Let me come back to the notion of subtype. The name "degenerate category" > is generating confusion. It corresponds to a partition of the extension of > each concept, induced by the involvement relation between universal > categories. These partitions (in twos and threes), visualized in the > Podium, cannot generate new categories. However, they can be seen to > operate within each trichotomy of each correlate (e.g., symbol, index, > icon); but this is merely a matter of language, which the following will > demonstrate is not operational and can be set aside. > > My answer, I hope, won't seem too stiff, but with Peirce, criticism is > rarely easy. > > Sincerely yours, > > 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.
