See my comments:
----- Original Message ----- From: Jon Alan Schmidt To: Edwina Taborsky Cc: [email protected] Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2015 12:43 PM Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Order of Interpretant Trichotomies for Sign Classes Edwina, List: EDWINA: 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. JON: Peirce clearly states, as we have quoted to each other several times now, "It is evident that a Possible can determine nothing but a Possible; it is equally so that a Necessitant can be determined by nothing but a Necessitant." EDWINA: All this means is that an Object in, for example, a mode of Firstness cannot become an Interpretant in a mode of Firstness or Thirdness. But, an Object in, for example, a mode of Secondness CAN become an Interpretant in a mode of Firstness (eg, a rhematic indexical sinsign). And, an Interpretant in a Mode of Thirdness cannot be 'determined' by an Object in a mode of Firstness or Secondness. 2) "Hence it follows from the Definition of a Sign that since the Dynamoid Object determines the Immediate Object, which determines the Sign itself, which determines the Destinate Interpretant, which determines the Effective Interpretant, which determines the Explicit Interpretant, ..." {Peirce} If destinate=immediate, effective=dynamic, and explicit=final/normal, then Ii => Id => If; that is, Ii can be a Third when Id and If are Firsts, which we previously agreed is NOT the case. EDWINA: Actually, yes, the DI and FI can lose information within the process. What is NOT the case is that the Interpretive process would INCREASE its informational content from II to DI to FI. So, for example, the rhematic symbolic legisign, which begins with the Object in interaction with mediation as a symbol (mode of Thirdness); and is mediated within habits of the legisign (mode of Thirdness)...but...still ends up in the Interpretant in a mode of Firstness. So - the interpretive process can and frequently does, lose information. JON: If Ii must be a First when Id is a First, and Id must be a First when If is a First, then If => Id => Ii; i.e., destinate=final, effective=dynamic, and explicit=immediate. Again, this is NOT the temporal sequence of the semiosic process; it is the taxonomic order of determination that results in 66 sign classes from 10 trichotomies. As Ben Udell has pointed out, it is also consistent with Peirce's use of words like "predestinate" and "destined" EDWINA: I don't agree that IF the Dynamic Interpretant is in a mode of Firstness, that this means that the Immediate Interpretant is in a mode of Firstness. Again, I see the Destinate as a synonym of Immediate; the Effective is Dynamic; and the Explicit is Final/Normal.I don't see that the DI determines the II. The process is from the II to DI to FI. Not the other way around. And I don't see how your 'taxonomic order' can change the temporal or modal informational order. But I urge you to read Spinks work - for he can possibly answer your questions - which are far beyond my capability! 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 .
