Edwina, List: I alluded to that at the end of my post. If Ii is always a Possible, Id is always an Actual, and If is always a Necessitant, how can there be a trichotomy of each one and a specific order of determination among them? It seems like that would drive us back to Short's thesis and make the three trichotomies all varieties of Feeling/Action/Thought, rather than Possible/Actual/Necessitant.
Thanks, Jon On Sat, Aug 15, 2015 at 2:35 PM, Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 >
----------------------------- 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 .
