See my comments below: ----- Original Message ----- From: Jon Alan Schmidt To: Edwina Taborsky Cc: [email protected] Sent: Monday, August 17, 2015 11:15 AM Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Order of Interpretant Trichotomies for Sign Classes
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. 1) 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). EDWINA: All he says in 8.344 is :'The ten respects according to which the chief divisions of signs are determined are as follows:...2nd, according to the Mode of Presentation of the Immediate Object". He doesn't, in this section, refer to the IO, using the above terms. 2) JON: 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. EDWINA: Again, Peirce uses the term of Sign and Representamen interchangeably, and sometimes he means the mediate Representamen and sometimes the full triadic Sign. The correct quote for the above is: 'The inquiry ought, one would expect, to be an easy one, since both trichotomies depend on their being three Modes of Presence to the mind, which we may term The Immediate- The Direct - The Familiar Mode of Presence. 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" 8.354. I read the above 'Three Modes of Presence' to refer to the three categories and Peirce notes that the Sign/Representamen "may have any Modality of Being, i.e., may belong to any one of the three Universes; its Immediate Object must be in some sense, in which the Sign need not be, Internal". 8.354. Now, if the Immediate Object is internal, then, it cannot be in a mode of pure Secondness, which by definition requires differentiation. So, it must be either in a mode of pure Firstness or, the 'degenerate' Secondness, which i term as Secondness-as-Firstness, i.e., a 'copy' of a unique differentiation. Yes - the semiosic Sign (that triad) is a process of transformation of 'data to data', or 'information to information' so to speak. A complex process. And I agree that the order is: DO-IO-R...which then goes on to II-DI-FI. WITH THE added caution, that not all three Interpretants are always experienced. As I've said before, I consider that the majority of our experience, as fallible daily-living humans, ends with the II and DI. We rarely go on to a thorough analytic reasoning of FI. 3) JON: "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. EDWINA: I don't see your problem with the above. Peirce is saying that there cannot be any change in the nature of an Immediate Object from its original stimuli, the Dynamic Object, and I don't see how there COULD be any difference. The Immediate Object cannot, on its own, ADD data to the stimuli of the External Dynamic Object! UNLESS - that Immediate Object is subjected to, in the mediation process of the Representamen...OTHER inputted stimuli of OTHER Immediate Objects (even those from memory or other external experiences). 4) JON: 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? EDWINA: I am saying that not all Signs must have the three Interpretants. You are suggesting that they do - and saying that it is possible that, "According to the Purpose of the Eventual Interpretant"..(8.373 my emphasis)...it could be a 'Gratific Final Interpretant',. This would mean that its function was as an image, a graph of the Dynamic Object; its modality would be operating in a mode of Firstness, and thus, as operative in such a mode..would have to be similar to the Immediate and Dynamic Interpretants - which would be in Firstness. On its own - without any networking with another input, I don't see how a Final Interpretant could have MORE Knowledge in it than is found within the Immediate and Dynamic Interpretants. 5) JON: 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? EDWINA: Now, you are saying that if a Sign (I presume you mean the full triad) has a 'genuine final interpretant', by which I presume you mean one that is 'seeking truth', is logical, is analytic...then, you are asking: what is the nature of the Dynamic and Immediate Interpretants? I can see your point, but is it the case that a Relation of genuine pure Thirdness between the Representamen and the Final Interpretant also necessarily mean that the subRelations between the Representamen and the II and DI must use the categories in a linear mode? Let's work it out: First - the Immediate Interpretant, as internal, must include the modal category of Firstness. This can be 1-1, 2-1, or 3-1. The Dynamic Interpretant, as external, must include the modal category of Secondness. This can be 2-2, 3-2. Or even 2-1 (Secondness as Firstness). The Final Interpretant - which you are here giving as an example - is 'pure or genuine' and thus, is 3-3 or Thirdness-as-Thirdness. Since all three Interpretants must have something in common, then, I'd agree with you that the order is: 3-1, 3-2 and finally, 3-3. 5) JON: 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 .
