Edwina, List: Briefly ...
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. JON: Peirce did, in fact, refer to the trichotomy of Descriptive, Designative/Denotative/Indicative/Denominative, Copulant/Copulative/Distributive as "the Mode of Presentation of the Immediate Object" (CP8.344, EP2:482). He later elaborated on the relations between this trichotomy and the one for "the Mode of Apprehension of the Sign Itself"--i.e., Potisign/Tone/Mark, Actisign/Token, Famisign/Type--and stated, "The difference between the two trichotomies is that the one refers to the Presence to the Mind of the Sign and the other to that of the Immediate Object." (CP8.354, EP2:485) He went on to explain that, in accordance with the rule of determination, the proper order is Od>Oi>S. "The remaining six classes are possible, i.e., Copulative Potisigns, Denominative Potisigns, Copulative Actisigns, Descriptive Potisigns, Denominative Actisigns, Copulative Famisigns." (CP8.361, EP2:488) "I was of the opinion that if the Dynamical Object be a mere Possible the Immediate Object could only be of the same nature, while if the Immediate Object were a Tendency or Habit then the Dynamical Object must be of the same nature." (CP8.367, EP2:489) This does not stipulate that the immediate object is always in the same categorical mode as the dynamic object; rather, it is simply a restatement of the rule of determination--"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." (EP2:481) In other words, the possible modes of the immediate object are constrained by the actual mode of the dynamic object; only six of the nine combinations are possible. Unfortunately, Peirce did not provide the same kind of detailed analysis of the three interpretant trichotomies (CP8.369,370,372; EP2:489-490). Immediate - Hypothetic, Categorical, Relative Dynamic - Sympathetic/Congruentive, Shocking/Percussive, Usual Final - Gratific, To produce action, To produce self-control How would you map the terminology from your message below to these? For example, are you saying that a gratific sign does not really have a dynamic or final interpretant--i.e., they are both identical to the immediate interpretant? If a sign does have a genuine final interpretant, does this entail that its dynamic and immediate interpretants are Thirdness-as-Secondness and Thirdness-as-Firstness, respectively--i.e., all signs to produce self-control are usual and relative? Your approach is interesting, and I might eventually come to agree with it, which would mean abandoning the 10-trichotomy, 66-class taxonomy; but for now, I want to treat the latter as a hypothesis and explicate it accordingly. It is only viable if there is exactly one proper order of the three interpretant trichotomies in accordance with the rule of determination, such that only 10 of the 27 combinations are possible. Regards, Jon On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 7:39 AM, Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> wrote: > A further comment to my comments below. I do not view the possible > divisions of the three Interpretants each into three modes as operationally > functional. That is, the resultant nine divisions would move the sign into > decomposition. Instead, we must consider the modes and where they overlap. > > For example, the Immediate Interpretant is strictly internal. Therefore, > its modal categories must involve Firstness, operative spatially internally > and within immediate time. It cannot move into a spatial categorical mode > of Secondness (which is external and in linear time)..although, it could > operate in the mode of Secondness-as-Firstness...(1.365)..which has no > separate existentiality but is 'only conceived as such'. And it could > operate within Thirdness-as-Firstness, which is 'Thirds degenerate in the > second degree...that of resemblance' (1.367). > > The Dynamic Interpretant must involve Secondness. It could be linked to > the Immediate Interpretant and ALSO be 'Secondness-as-Firstness'..but that > would mean that the number of options would be reduced - for the Dynamic > Interpretant wouldn't exist 'as such' but would actually be an Immediate > Interpretant operating in that grade of Secondness which is 'degenerate'. > And it could operate within Thirdness-as-Secondness...but that 'is where > there is in the fact itself no Thirdness or mediation, but where there is > true duality" (1.366). > > Another example..The final Interpretant must involve Thirdness. ..but - if > we consider its two degrees of degeneracy, we lose two in this area for > they are linked to the Immediate and Dynamic Interpretants. > > And the total number of interpretants in their modes is reduced to six. > > 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 .
