See my comments below: ----- Original Message ----- From: Jon Alan Schmidt To: Edwina Taborsky Cc: [email protected] Sent: Sunday, August 16, 2015 4:24 PM Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Order of Interpretant Trichotomies for Sign Classes
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. Edwina: Here, I disagree; as I said before, I don't see that each Representamen must have all three Interpretants. ------------------------------- JON: 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. EDWINA: I'm not sure what you mean by 'distinct'. As Peirce says, the immediate object is defined 'according to the Mode of Presentation (EP2:p 482, CP 8:344). So, the Immediate Object differs from the Dynamic Object because the DO functions according to its mode of Being (it IS an external sense, while the Immediate Object is an internal sense). Jon: 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. EDWINA: Peirce's analysis in these sections, eg, the list of ten..cp 8.344, doesn't, as far as I can see, divide each, eg, Interpretant into three further divisions, which is what you seem to be saying. For example, in this list, he refers to the Sign or Representamen as defined/functional within: its mode of apprehension; then, the Relation of the Sign to its Dynamical Object; then, the Relation of the Sign to the Dynamical Interpretant; then, the Relation of the Sign to the Normal (Final) Interpretant; and, the Triadic Relation of the Sign to its Dynamical Object and to its Normal (Final ) Interpretant. Then, he goes on to examine these five functions of the Sign/Representamen in more detail. With regard to the Immediate Object, he refers to its "mode of Presentation. That's it. With regard to the Dynamical Object, he refers to its Mode of Being....[and he also considers the Relation of the Sign to that Dynamical Object). With regard to the Immediate Interpretant - he refers only to its 'mode of Presentation'. Similar to the Immediate Object'. With regard to the Dynamical Interpretant - he refers to its Mode of Being ..[and he also considers the Relation of the Sign to the Dynamical Interpretant] With regard to the normal/Final Interpretant, he refers to the Nature of this Interpretant..[and he also considers the Relation of the Sign to this Interpretant'. And finally - he considers the Relation of the Sign/Representamen to its Dyn. Object and its Normal/Final Interpretant. So- I don't see where EACH Interpretant is further, in itself, divided into three. 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. Jon: 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. EDWINA: But - I'm not saying that there is ONE Interpretant. There are three - but not all are functional within a particular Sign (I refer to the Sign, capital S, to mean the Object-Representamen-Interpretant). ... What you seem to be saying, if I uderstand you correctly, is that each Interpretant is further divided into 3 - and I don't see that. The way I read Peirce - is that there are THREE very different Interpretants - but, again, not all three appear in all Signs. 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 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
----------------------------- 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 .
