- He says in 1903 that for any class where 3ns is predominant, there are subclasses of relatively genuine 3ns, relatively reactional 3ns, and relatively qualitative 3ns.
- He also says in 1903 that in any triadic relation, the first correlate (e.g., sign) is the simplest, the second (e.g., object) is of middling complexity, and the third (e.g., interpretant) is the most complex.
- He introduces the hexad of six correlates already in October 1904, not 1906 or 1908; and it is a further development of his 1903 speculative grammar, not a completely new approach.
- He employs the terminology of phaneroscopic analysis to explain the additional correlates in July 1905--the dynamical/immediate objects are genuine/degenerate, and the final/dynamical/immediate interpretants are genuinely/secundally/primarily tertian.
- He again refers to the dynamical object and the final interpretant as "genuine" in April 1906, less than a month after writing the letter to Lady Welby that is excerpted below.
Jon, List,
It is false to assert this:
JAS: Phaneroscopic analysis of the genuine triadic relation of representing/mediating reveals that every one sign has two objects and three interpretants, for a total of six correlates.
Phaneroscopic analysis of a genuine triadic relation reveals nothing of this. This can be seen from the first appearance of the six correlates in 1906:
33 - 1906 - S.S. 196 - Letter to Lady Welby (Draft) dated "1906 March 9".
I use the word "Sign" in the widest sense for any medium for the communication or extension of a Form (or feature). Being medium, it is determined by something, called its Object, and determines something, called its Interpretant or Interpretand. But some distinctions have to be borne in mind in order rightly to understand what is meant by the Object and by the Interpretant. In order that a Form may be extended or communicated, it is necessary that it should have been really embodied in a Subject independently of the communication; and it is necessary that there should be another subject in which the same form is embodied only in consequence of the communication. The Form, (and the Form is the Object of the Sign), as it really determines the former Subject, is quite independent of the sign; yet we may and indeed must say that the object of a sign can be nothing but what that sign represents it to be. Therefore, in order to reconcile these apparently conflicting Truths, it is indispensible to distinguish the immediate object from the dynamical object.
The same form of distinction extends to the interpretant. Still, as applied to the interpretant, it is complicated by the circumstance that the sign not only determines the interpretant to represent (or to take the form of) the object, but also determines the interpretant to represent the sign. Indeed in what we may, from one point of view, regard as the principal kind of signs, there is one distinct part appropriated to representing the object, and another to representing how this very sign itself represents that object. The class of signs I refer to are the dicisigns. In "John is in love with Helen" the object signified is the pair, John and Helen. But the "is in love with" signifies the form this sign represents itself to represent John and Helen's Form to be. That this is so is shown by the precise equivalence between any verb in the indicative and the same made the object of "I tell you". "Jesus wept" = "I tell you that Jesus wept".
As you can see, the reasons given by Peirce do not mention the phaneroscopy of the triadic sign at any point. He describes the six stages of the journey of a form that would be in the object of the sign into the mind through six successive determinations. He arrives at a more complicated sign, a new definition by expansion.
We can still see this in CP 4.536 et 4.539, then in 1908 (47 bis – 1908 - Letter to Lady Welby in CP 8.343), CP 8.314 [March 14, 1909], and in CP 8.183 (undated).
It seems to me that Jon is attempting to dissolve the triadic sign into the hexadic sign (a more detailed hypostatic abstraction of the semiotic phenomenon according to Peirce) in order to ultimately promote an idiosyncratic pentadic sign with 21 classes in which he engraves his ideology (if not something else ?) by placing the If wherever it suits him.
I promised myself I would keep my time to myself and stop fact-checking, but this was too much.
Honorary Professor ; PhD Mathematics ; PhD Philosophy
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ► 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] . ► <a href="mailto:[email protected]";>UNSUBSCRIBE FROM PEIRCE-L</a> . But, if your subscribed email account is not your default email account, then go to https://list.iu.edu/sympa/signoff/peirce-l . ► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary Richmond; and co-managed by him and Ben Udell.
