Edwina, List: 1. I am following Short in using "sign" to refer to what some call the "representamen" or "sign-vehicle." The triad is not the sign; rather, the sign is one of three relata in the triad, along with the object and interpretant.
2,3,4. My understanding is that every sign has three different (but not independent) interpretants--immediate, dynamic, and final--each with its own trichotomy. The immediate interpretant has no distinct relation with the sign, which is why it is called "immediate"; the same is true of the immediate object. However, the dynamic object, dynamic interpretant, and final interpretant do have distinct relations with the sign, each with its own trichotomy; and the triadic relation among the sign, dynamic object, and final interpretant provides yet another trichotomy. Hence there are ten trichotomies and 66 classes of signs once the rule of determination is applied--"It is evident that a Possible can determine nothing but a Possible; it is equally so that a Necessitant can be determined by nothing but a Necessitant." See EP2:481-490 for all of this, which I thought was pretty basic stuff in Peirce. My original question pertains to the proper ordering of the three interpretant trichotomies in accordance with the rule of determination. Since Peirce gave this order as "destinate," then "effective," then "explicit" (EP2:481), it is not clear whether he meant Ii>Id>If (as commonly assumed) or If>Id>Ii (as argued by Mueller, Morand, and Udell). The whole issue is meaningless if the 10-trichotomy, 66-class taxonomy is rejected in favor of a modified 3-trichotomy, 10-class taxonomy in which immediate/dynamic/final is the trichotomy for the (one) interpretant--something that I have not come across in any of Peirce's own writings or the secondary literature so far. Regards, Jon On Sun, Aug 16, 2015 at 9:05 AM, Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 *S*ign. > > 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 >
----------------------------- 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 .
