List: So far, the only explicit argument that I have found in the literature for If>Id>Ii is this one:
<QUOTE Ralf Mueller, 1994, http://www.jstor.org/stable/40320456> Today the mostly held opinion is that the line of dependency in a sign process runs like this: dO - iO - s - il - di - ni. I like to argue that ... it leads to counterintuitive consequences. Consider the il being of the nature of a First. Then by Peircean phenomenological principle this il can only rule dynamic and normal Interpretants of the same nature. But that is unacceptable. There must be the chance that a sign which given enough time for consideration would be interpreted (ni) as a Third is actually interpreted (di) as a Second. So the ni should precede the di and in analogy to the two objects the di the il. <END QUOTE> Unfortunately, Mueller does not provide any illustrative examples as evidence of his assertions. He did go on to suggest the following sequence for all ten trichotomies (my notation): Od>Oi>S>In>Id>Ii>S-Od>S-In>S-Id>S-Od-In. However, it seems to me that S-Od should come before all of the interpretants, since the latter are sometimes described as further signs, of which S-Od is the object. The object always determines the sign, so S-Od must determine the interpretants. Am I on the right track here? Also, Ben Udell pointed me to this comment by Bernard Morand from the 2008 discussion: <QUOTE Bernard Morand, 10/28/2009, http://article.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/4884> The dynamic interpretant is "whatever interpretation any mind actually makes of a sign." (CP 8.315). The immediate interpretant "consists in the Quality of the Impression that a sign is fit to produce, not to any actual reaction" (id.). To say that the mode of being of the former determines the mode of presentation of the latter amounts to say that actual - reactive interpretations, in various contexts, determine the quality of an impression. Taking one more time the example of words or may be of a piece of music: hearing them in diverse situations leads to augment the quality of the impression (or imprint) they leave. So an actual sympathetic effect of a sign would determine nothing else than an hypothetic mode of presentation of the Impression it causes. According to the hierarchy of the trichotomies the same sympathetic effect could not determine a categorical nor relative mode of presentation of the quality of the Impression <END QUOTE> Regards, Jon
----------------------------- 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 .
