I've just added a clarification - I might be misunderstanding Jon's notation... ----- Original Message ----- From: Jon Alan Schmidt To: Edwina Taborsky Cc: [email protected] Sent: Monday, August 17, 2015 1:14 PM Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Order of Interpretant Trichotomies for Sign Classes
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: I might be misunderstanding your notation. I'm just considering that your Ii>Id>If notation simply means 'order of processing'. But I'm beginning to think that you mean something MORE. Your use of > might be saying that Ii contains MORE information than Id; and that Id contains MORE information than If. I certainly would disagree with that! The Immediate Interpretant can be more ambiguous than the Dynamic Interpretant..and that more ambiguous than the Final Interpretant. 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 .
