There continues to be a misunderstanding. I don't understand how you can change the order of the semiosic process to, for example, have the Final Interpretant coming before the Immediate Interpretant.
If you are instead saying that the FI is more dominant than the II in its formation of the Sign - that's one thing, but surely you aren't claiming that the FI is temporally earlier than the II. The ten examples provided by Short seem, to me, to be from Peirce's outline of the ten classes of signs. See CP 2.254-2.264. The order in Short's outline is as it is in Peirce's outline: Representamen-Object-Interpretant. BUT - this is not the order of processing. Again, there are two things to consider here. One is the temporal order of processing; the other is the informational power of each site in the action of semiosis. These are two very different things. Informationally, the Final Interpretant must be more powerful than the Immediate Interpretant. Informationally, the Representamen must be more powerful, but, it cannot be 'all-powerful', as it is an evolving set of habits/beliefs. For Peirce, reality was what is found objectively - not what is found in our beliefs. So- I think that this question about 'order-of-processing' and 'power-of-processing'...has to be cleared up first! From: Jon Alan Schmidt To: Edwina Taborsky Cc: [email protected] Sent: Monday, August 17, 2015 10:46 PM Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Order of Interpretant Trichotomies for Sign Classes Edwina, List: You evidently misunderstood what I was indicating, which is probably my fault for not being clear. I was only listing the six trichotomies that come AFTER the first four, which are Od > Oi > S > (S-Od). Including all ten this time ... (a) Od > Oi > S > (S-Od) > If > Id > Ii > (S-If) > (S-Id) > (S-Od-If). (b) Od > Oi > S > (S-Od) > If > (S-If) > Id > (S-Id) > Ii > (S-Od-If). (c) Od > Oi > S > (S-Od) > (S-Od-If) > (S-If) > If > (S-Id) > Id > Ii. I also forgot to mention that (a), unlike (b) and (c), is consistent with T. L. Short's assertion on page 253 of Peirce's Theory of Signs (2007) that Ii > (S-If) > (S-Id) is the only workable order for those three trichotomies. He even provided illustrative examples to support this claim, as follows. 1 > 1 > 1 = qualitative/hypothetic, term/rheme/seme, presented/suggestive = any work of art so far as ‘pure.’ 2 > 1 > 1 = experiental/categorical, term/rheme/seme, presented/suggestive = pokes in the back, pointings. 2 > 2 > 1 = experiental/categorical, proposition/dicent/pheme, presented/suggestive = questions. 2 > 2 > 2 = experiental/categorical, proposition/dicent/pheme, urged/imperative = commands, moral imperatives. 3 > 1 > 1 = logical/relative, term/rheme/seme, presented/suggestive = nouns, verbs, adjectives, adverbs. 3 > 2 > 1 = logical/relative, proposition/dicent/pheme, presented/suggestive = hypotheses, proposed plans. 3 > 2 > 2 = logical/relative, proposition/dicent/pheme, urged/imperative = assertions. 3 > 3 > 1 = logical/relative, argument/delome, presented/suggestive = the presentation of an argument. 3 > 3 > 2 = logical/relative, argument/delome, urged/imperative = the urging of an argument. 3 > 3 > 3 = logical/relative, argument/delome, submitted/indicative = the submission of an argument. Qualitative, experiential, and logical are my shorthand for Peirce's division of signs based on the immediate interpretant as given at CP8.339--"interpretable in qualities of feeling or experience," "interpretable in actual experiences," "interpretable in thoughts or other signs of the same kind in infinite series." Presented, urged, and submitted come from CP8.338, which is also where Peirce clearly indicates that (S-If) > (S-Id). "According to my present view, a sign may appeal to its dynamic interpretant in three ways: 1st, an argument only may be submitted to its interpretant, as something the reasonableness of which will be acknowledged. 2nd, an argument or dicent may be urged upon the interpretant by an act of insistence. 3rd, argument or dicent may be, and a rheme can only be, presented to the interpretant for contemplation." 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 .
----------------------------- 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 .
