Edwina, List: Now I see why there was confusion before--we are talking about two different things. You are describing a modified version of Peirce's (well-established) 3-trichotomy, 10-sign taxonomy; I am asking about his (unfinished) 10-trichotomy, 66-sign taxonomy. I say that your version is modified because (1) you seem to be making the third trichotomy about the interpretant itself, rather than its relation to the sign; and (2) you are aligning the immediate/dynamic/final interpretants with rheme/dicent/argument, rather than the relation of sign to the final interpretant only.
Regards, Jon On Sat, Aug 15, 2015 at 6:38 PM, Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> wrote: > Right. > > No, I don't think that all Signs have all three Interpretants. If you look > at the ten classes of signs 2.254-6 in the CP collection, you'll see that > only ONE sign actually operates with the Interpretant in a mode of > Thirdness - which would mean that particular Sign was involved in the Final > Interpretant, looking for a 'logical truth-result'. > > But, not all Signs in our experience function as having reached that > 'truthful' final analysis. Most of our experience, as you will see from the > ten classes of Signs, revolves around interpretations that are quite > subjective and qualitative....the semiosic experience ends with the > Immediate Interpretant. There are SIX Signs of the ten that do this > (rhematic). And only three end with the Dynamic Interpretant or a mode of > Secondness (Dicent). > > Again, most of our semiosic experience is quite personal, subjective, > local, 'felt' and doesn't move to the analytic logical phase. > > Edwina >
----------------------------- 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 .
