Jon - I'm confused by your comment! I don't see a 'trichotomy of each one'. The order of the three Interpretants is within the modal sense: Feeling/Action/Thought (Firstness, Secondness, Thirdness) and the terms for the Interpretant in this mode are: Immediate, Dynamic and Final.
I've also seen the terms of Emotional, Energetic, Logical, and Possible, Actual, Habitual, for the same three Interpretants. And, Explicit, Effective, Destinate. But it's all the same: they operate within the three modal categories of Firstness, Secondness, Thirdness. I think your selection below is quite clear:..and fits the three modes (Firstness, Secondness, Thirdness)..and Peirce's analysis of these three categorical modes. "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." And your comment below is equally quite clear, as representing the three categorical modes: "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)." Edwina ----- Original Message ----- From: Jon Alan Schmidt To: Edwina Taborsky Cc: [email protected] Sent: Saturday, August 15, 2015 4:19 PM Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Order of Interpretant Trichotomies for Sign Classes 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 .
