See comments below:

  1) JON: Next question--given that If>Id>Ii, where do the three interpretant 
relation trichotomies fit?  


  S-Id = Relation of the Sign to the Dynamic Interpretant = Manner of Appeal to 
the Dynamic Intepretant - Presented/Suggestive, Urged/Imperative, 
Submitted/Indicative.
  S-If = Relation of the Sign to the Normal/Final Interpretant = Nature of the 
Influence of the Sign - Rheme/Seme, Dicent/Pheme, Argument/Delome.
  S-Od-If = Triadic Relation of the Sign to the Dynamic Object and Its 
Normal/Final Interpretant = Nature of the Assurance of the Utterance - 
Instinct, Experience, Form.

  EDWINA: We must acknowledge that the Peircean Sign is triadic; it is NOT made 
up of dyads. Therefore, it is not made up of the Relation of the 
Representamen-DO, or Representamen-DI...etc. We can, however, analyze these 
internal-to-the-triad Relations.
  And, the Relations are obviously in any one of the three modal categories. 
BUT - again, within the full set of Six interactions
  DO-IO- Representamen-II-DI-FI....these must be in harmony - as has been 
slightly explained in previous posts.


  2) JON: According to Peirce (CP8.338), we also know that S-If>S-Id.  Here are 
some arrangements, consistent with this, that I have seen.

  EDWINA: I'm not sure of the above as a general truth. You are saying, if I 
understand your notations, that the Relation between the Representamen and the 
Final Interpretant has more information than the Relation between the 
Representamen and the Dynamic Interpretant. But they could be equal. 


  3) JON: (a) If>Id>Ii>S-If>S-Id>S-Od-If.

  EDWINA:What about 
Representamen<->DO>IO-Representamen-II<DO<FO-->Representamen..

  Understanding the above within Peirce's "Thought..is more without us than 
within. It is we that are in it, rather than it in any of us". 8.256. 
Understanding 'Thought' as 'Mind' and as held within the Representamen. That 
is, semiosis operates within Mind and its generalized universals...which are 
articulated/made existential within a triad of interactions: 
Object-Representamen-Interpretant. 


  4) JON: (b) If>S-If>Id>S-Id>Ii>S-Od-If.
  EDWINA: Seems to be a set of dyads...?  The FI and DI and II have more 
information than the Representamen? Or just more particularized information? 
Your triad of S-Od-If, which I read as Representamen-Dynamic Object-Final 
Interpretant...Do you agree with my outline in point 3 above, which I copy here 
as: "That is, semiosis operates within Mind and its generalized 
universals...which are articulated/made existential within a triad of 
interactions: Object-Representamen-Interpretant." 

  (c) S-Od-If>S-If>If>S-Id>Id>Ii.


  All of the correlates come before all of the relations in (a), and each 
correlate comes right before its corresponding relation in (b), except that the 
triadic relation is last.  What bothers me about (c)--which has been advocated 
in years past by Ben Udell and Bernard Morand, perhaps others--is that it 
involves relation trichotomies determining their constituent correlate 
trichotomies.  It seems to me that, just as S-Od comes after both Od and S, 
likewise S-If must come after both S and If, S-Id must come after both S and 
Id, and S-Od-If must come after Od, S, If, and S-If.  The problem is that I can 
offer no good reason for such a restriction, other than the common-sense notion 
that a relation cannot be more determinate than any of its relata.  Am I wrong 
about this?

  EDWINA: You've begun with the triad. And with the Representamen as 'the 
ground'. You've left out the Immediate Object....and have the Representamen in 
three dyads: R-FI; R-DI; R-II (I think). Sorry- but I don't understand what you 
are trying to get across. You state: "just as S-Od comes after both Od and S, 
likewise S-If must come after both S and If,"....and I don't understand your 
point.


-----------------------------
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 .




Reply via email to