Just a brief response as I have little time, but I don't think that the Immediate Interpretant is an 'actual' (ie in a mode of Secondness); I'd say it's a 'felt' possible or potential. The dynamic interpretant is an actual (external, no longer purely subjective, cognitive, known, articulated)...and the Final Interpretant would be the truth.
Edwina Taborsky ----- Original Message ----- From: Jon Alan Schmidt To: [email protected] Sent: Saturday, August 15, 2015 2:19 PM Subject: [PEIRCE-L] Order of Interpretant Trichotomies for Sign Classes Greetings! I am by no means a Peirce scholar--I am a professional engineer and amateur philosopher--but I became interested in his ideas a few months ago for various reasons. I have read a considerable amount of the secondary literature since then, as well as EP1 and portions of EP2 (still in progress). I have also been looking through the list archives and monitoring some of the recent discussions. In one of the latter, Ben Udell made this comment that caught my eye: <QUOTE Ben Udell, 08/06/2015, http://article.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/16922> To top it off, years ago at peirce-l, I harshly and wrong-headedly criticized Atkin's account of Peirce's immediate, dynamical, and final/normal interpretants, as regards certain points about which Atkin was in fact quite correct (the final/normal interpretant determines the dynamical interpretant, and those interpretants determine the immediate interpretant). <END QUOTE> Ben and I exchanged a few e-mails about this, which led us to the discovery that his memory was mistaken--his criticism had actually been directed at what Atkin wrote about the alignment of the three interpretants with the three grades of clarity. However, I was still surprised by what Ben said about the determination of the interpretants (If>Id>Ii); my previous readings had pretty consistently indicated the reverse order (Ii>Id>If). Digging further into the list archives led me to a 2008 post in which Ben cited this passage: <QUOTE Peirce, 12/23/1908, EP2:481> 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. Hence it follows from the Definition of a Sign that since the Dynamoid Object determines the Immediate Object, which determines the Sign itself, which determines the Destinate Interpretant, which determines the Effective Interpretant, which determines the Explicit Interpretant, the six trichotomies, instead of determining 729 classes of signs, as they would if they were independent, only yield 28 classes ... <END QUOTE> Ben then added this comment: <QUOTE Ben Udell, 10/28/2008, http://article.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/4881> (It seems fair to take "Destinate Interpretant," "Effective Interpretant," and "Explicit Interpretant" as, respectively, "Final Interpretant," "Dynamic Interpretant," and "Immediate Interpretant.") <END QUOTE> Apparently, Peirce never spelled out how he would map the destinate/effective/explicit interpretants to the immediate/dynamic/final interpretants. Ben matched them up based on Peirce's usage elsewhere of "destined," "predestinate," and similar terms, along with the fact that "explicit" can simply mean "expressed." On the other hand, I pointed out that "destinate" can also mean "set apart for" or "intended," while "explicit" can also mean "fully revealed or expressed without vagueness" or "fully developed or formulated." However, it really comes down to Peirce's first sentence quoted above. If the immediate interpretant is an Actual, which can the final interpretant be--a Possible (Ii determines If) or a Necessitant (If determines Ii)? Same question regarding Ii/Id and Id/If. Unfortunately, Peirce did not provide clear answers and explanations like he did for Od>Oi>S (EP2:480-481,485-489, 1908), as well as S-If>S-Id (L463, 1904). The bare terminology from EP2:482-483,489-490 (1908) is not terribly illuminating: Ii = Mode of Presentation = Hypothetic, Categorical, Relative. Id = Mode of Being = Sympathetic/Congruentive, Shocking/Percussive, Usual. If = Nature or Purpose = Gratific, To produce action, To produce self-control. Alternatively, L463 indicates Ii = qualities of feelings or appearances, actual experiences, thoughts or other signs of the same kind in infinite series. This seems consistent with Short's thesis that all three interpretants can be emotional, energetic, or logical; but it is not much help in sorting out the order of determination. To muddy the waters further, Ii is often defined as a sign's interpretability, the effect that it may have (Possible); Id as any effect that it does have (Actual); and If as the effect that it would eventually have (Necessitant). I would be grateful for some assistance with all this, especially specific illustrative examples, which I have had a hard time formulating myself. Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ----------------------------- 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 the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
----------------------------- 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 the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
