See my comments below: ----- Original Message ----- From: Jon Alan Schmidt To: Edwina Taborsky Cc: [email protected] Sent: Sunday, August 16, 2015 9:37 PM Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Order of Interpretant Trichotomies for Sign Classes
Edwina, List: I referenced EP2:481-490, not just EP2:482. Page 483 introduces "The Ten Main Trichotomies of Signs," and the first three are explained in some detail through page 489; the other seven are only given as sets of three terms on pp. 489-490, which presumably correspond to Firstness, Secondness, Thirdness. Here is the entire list. 1. Mode of Presentation of the Sign - Potisign, Actisign, Famisign. EDWINA: He later changes these to: Mark, Token, Type. The above refers to the Representamen alone, in itself, in, as you note, the three modal categories. 2. Mode of Presentation of the (Immediate) Object - Descriptive, Designative, Copulant. EDWINA: He later changed these to: Descriptive, Denominative and Distributive. The Immediate Object is internal. I note that Peirce did not, in his description of the above terms, refer to them as the 'Immediate Object'. He used only the term 'Objects'. Can the Immediate Object- which is internal - be a physical existentiality, akin to the external Dynamic Object? I can't agree with you that the above terms refer to the Immediate Object, seemingly in a separate existentiality for the mere fact of its being internal in 'an Other' means that it has no longer any separate existentiality. And Peirce notes, in 8.367, that the Immediate Object is in the same categorical mode as the Dynamical Object. 3. Nature of the Dynamic Object - Abstractive, Concretive, Collective. 4. Relation of the Sign to Its Object - Icon, Index, Symbol. EDWINA: Peirce refers to the above in 3, as how the Sign/Representamen 'represents' that Dynamic Object but these are directly linked to the Relation between the Representamen and the Object - see 4. An iconic Relation will present an abstract image; an indexical Relation presents a physical existentiality...Again, I don't see the functionality of such a micro-distinction between defining the 'noun' so to speak and the 'relation' within which that 'noun' exists. 5. Nature of the Immediate Interpretant - Hypothetic, Categorical, Relative. EDWINA: The above is the 'physical' internal expression of the Interpretant. As internal, even though moving from a mere sensate utterance to assertion to some form of cognition..it remains bonded to the Representamen and the Immediate Object. 6. Nature of the Dynamic Interpretant - Sympathetic/Congruentive, Shocking/Percussive, Usual. 7. Manner of Appeal to the Dynamic Interpretant - Suggestive, Imperative, Indicative. EDWINA: Again, the three forms that the DI can take in their expression...Both the 'Nature' and 'Manner of Appeal' are similar except that one can be called a 'noun' and the other a 'relation or verb'....and I see no functionality in such a micro-analytic differentiation. 8. Purpose of the Eventual (Final) Interpretant - Gratific, To produce action, To produce self-control. 9. Nature of the Influence of the Sign - Seme, Pheme, Delome. 10. Nature of the Assurance of the Utterance - Instinct, Experience, Form. Based on the bare list that you referenced, #7 is the relation of the sign to its dynamic interpretant, #9 is the relation of the sign to its final interpretant, and #10 is the triadic relation of the sign to its dynamic object and final interpretant. #5, #6, and #8 are the three interpretants, each of which is indeed divided into a trichotomy by Peirce. What I am seeking is the proper order of determination for these three; the order given here is categorial. 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 .
