I do urge you to read the Spinks book; he goes into great detail on the 
interpretants.  That 'third trichotomy' or 'signs related to their 
interpretants..all the way from ch 3 through 6. Very detailed. 

If we are talking about 'Interpretant Growth', which is to say, the depth of 
information held within that Interpretant, then, the growth must be from the II 
to DI to FI. The II is internal and thus, lacks the breadth and depth of 
relations with Others of the DI and FI. And certainly, categorically, Thirdness 
cannot, in these interpretants, precede Firstness. That would be a Platonic 
essentialism,  suggesting that 'Truth' was pre-existent and Formed..and would 
'draw' matter/concepts to it. 

I don't follow your interpretation of the Spink's comment - I see the Destinate 
as a synonym of Immediate; the Effective is Dynamic; and the Explicit is 
Final/Normal. 
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Jon Alan Schmidt 
  To: Edwina Taborsky 
  Cc: [email protected] 
  Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2015 11:03 AM
  Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Order of Interpretant Trichotomies for Sign Classes


  Edwina, List:


  Thank you for the book suggestion, I will look into it.  However ...



  EDWINA:  If the Dynamic Interpretant is in a mode of Thirdness, then, the 
Final won't be in a mode of Firstness!


  This is what we agreed earlier; but it entails that destinate=final and 
explicit=immediate.


  SPINKS, p. 197:  the Destinate Interpretant becomes the Immediate 
Interpretant of the fifth trichotomy, the  Effective Interpretant becomes the 
Dynamical Interpretants (Active and Passive) of the sixth and seventh 
trichotomoies, and the Explicit Interpretant becomes the eight, ninth and tenth 
trichtomoies dealing with the "Normal Interpretant"


  If this is correct--and I thought it was until yesterday--then the order is 
Ii => Id => In; i.e., if the dynamic interpretant is in a mode of Thirdness, 
then the final interpretant CAN be in in a mode of Firstness.  Again, we agreed 
earlier that this is NOT the case.


  The adjustment to my notation (=> rather than >) reflects the fact that the 
adicity of each trichotomy (1, 2, or 3) must always be equal to or less than 
that of its predecessor.


  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 .




Reply via email to