Edwina, List: Again, briefly ...
EDWINA: 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. JON: Just to be clear--are you saying that the proper order of the three interpretant trichotomies, in accordance with the rule of determination, is Ii>Id>If? EDWINA: 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. JON: If we understand the final interpretant to be a "would-be," its reality (not existence) is not dependent on anyone ever actually experiencing it. In that sense, every sign has an immediate interpretant and a final interpretant, but some signs do not have a dynamic interpretant; i.e., no interpretant of the sign is ever actualized. However, there would still be a constraint on the mode of being or nature of any dynamic interpretant that could be actualized by that sign. Does that constraint come from the mode of presentation of the immediate interpretant (Ii>Id), or from the nature or purpose of the final interpretant (If>Id)? Again, you seem to be saying the former, rather than the latter. The alternative is an order of either Ii>If>Id or If>Ii>Id, which no one advocates as far as I know. 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! JON: I take Peirce to be saying that if the dynamic object is a Necessitant (collective), then the immediate object can be in any of the three categories (descriptive, denominative, distributive); if Od is an Actual (concretive), then Oi can be descriptive or denominative, but cannot be distributive; and if Od is a Possible, then Oi must be a descriptive. EDWINA: 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. JON: This is consistent with Ii>Id>If. Now, if the nature or purpose of the final interpretant is to produce action, the dynamic interpretant obviously can be shocking/percussive; but can it also be sympathetic/congruentive (If>Id) or usual (Id>If)? And if the mode of being of the dynamic interpretant is shocking/percussive, the immediate interpretant obviously can be categorical; but can it also be hypothetic (Id>Ii) or relative (Ii>Id)? 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 .
