Jon: I think that there has to be some clarification of terms. 1) You use the term 'sign' to mean both the triad of Object-Representamen-Interpretant, which I always clarify by capitalizing as Sign.
And you also use the same term, if I understand you correctly, to refer to only the mediating process in the triad, the Representamen. [Peirce did the same thing - but I think one has to mull through his writings to see what he exactly meant]. 2) You yourself brought up the three-phase actions of the Interpretant, so, I'm confused now..for after all, the Interpretant, in all its phases, is in a Relation with the Representamen (which you term as 'sign']. 3) You write: "you are aligning the immediate/dynamic/final interpretants with rheme/dicent/argument, rather than the relation of sign to the final interpretant only." Now, if I understand you in the above, you are focusing on "the relation of the Representamen to the final interpretant'. I don't see that it is possible for the semiosic triad to exclude, in its semiosic process, the two less complex Interpretants; namely, the immediate and dynamic. All three are, in my view, in a Relation with the Representamen. So - what am I misunderstanding in your questions? 4) I don't see that the Peircean sign moves away from the basic triad; there's no 'ten-trichotomy'. There are microphases of the triad: dynamic object-immediate object - Representamen - and the Immediate, Dynamic and Final Interpretants ..which brings us to only six microparts. And you can then add in the modes which increases the complexity - where the Dynamic Object can be in any one of the three modes; and the Representamen can be in any one of the three modes. BUT - although this increases the internal complexity of the Sign, as you point out, ....I'm not sure how it moves away from the basic format of the triad. I would say that this internal complexity increases the ability of matter to adapt to environmental stimuli. So- I am obviously missing something in your argument! Edwina ----- Original Message ----- From: Jon Alan Schmidt To: Edwina Taborsky Cc: [email protected] Sent: Sunday, August 16, 2015 9:25 AM Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Order of Interpretant Trichotomies for Sign Classes 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 .
----------------------------- 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 .
