1) I think that you'll have to get someone else to explain to me why I continue to fail to understand your point of:
JON: If this were the case, then a final/normal interpretant in a mode of Thirdness could not correspond to a dynamic interpretant in a mode of Firstness or Secondness. But a final/normal interpretant in a mode of Thirdness (MORE information) CAN, in fact, correspond to a dynamic interpretant in a mode of Firstness or Secondness (LESS information). Is it the IMMEDIATE interpretant in a mode of Thirdness (MORE information) that cannot correspond to a dynamic interpretant in a mode of Firstness or Secondness (LESS information). At least, that is what I understood from all of your previous comments. Thus, destinate=final/normal and explicit=immediate. EDWINA: My point is that a FI in a mode of Thirdness cannot have its DI in a mode of Firstness or Secondness. And an II in a mode of Thirdness could have its DI andFI in modes of Firstness and Secondness (less information). Whereas, your point is that a FI can be in a mode of Thirdness while its DI could be only in a mode of Firstness or Secondness. I simply don't understand this. Where would the increased information in the FI come from? 2) 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 ... I don't see that the DI determines the II. JON: Likewise, a dynamic interpretant in a mode of Firstness cannot correspond to an immediate interpretant in a mode of Secondness or Thirdness, because this would mean that the immediate interpretant has MORE information than the dynamic interpretant. Remember, "determines" in this context simply means "has an equal or higher adicity"; so if the DI must have equal or higher adicity than the II, as we previously agreed, then the DI DOES determine the II, in this specific sense. EDWINA: If the DI is in a mode of Firstness, then, the II could be in a mode of Secondness or Firstness!....Yes, the II could have more information than the DI - and the DI would have, for some reason, lost information. I don't agree that the DI must have equal or higher adicity than the II; I think it's the other way around. The FI, for example, can't have higher adicity (modality) than the DI! Again - that sounds like Platonism. ----- Original Message ----- From: Jon Alan Schmidt To: Edwina Taborsky Cc: [email protected] Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2015 1:44 PM Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Order of Interpretant Trichotomies for Sign Classes Edwina, List: JON (earlier): 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. JON: Right; but based on what Peirce goes on to say, it ALSO means that an explicit interpretant in a mode of Thirdness cannot be determined by an effective interpretant in a mode of Firstness or Secondness. EDWINA: Again, I see the Destinate as a synonym of Immediate; the Effective is Dynamic; and the Explicit is Final/Normal. JON: If this were the case, then a final/normal interpretant in a mode of Thirdness could not correspond to a dynamic interpretant in a mode of Firstness or Secondness. But a final/normal interpretant in a mode of Thirdness (MORE information) CAN, in fact, correspond to a dynamic interpretant in a mode of Firstness or Secondness (LESS information). Is it the IMMEDIATE interpretant in a mode of Thirdness (MORE information) that cannot correspond to a dynamic interpretant in a mode of Firstness or Secondness (LESS information). At least, that is what I understood from all of your previous comments. Thus, destinate=final/normal and explicit=immediate. 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 ... I don't see that the DI determines the II. JON: Likewise, a dynamic interpretant in a mode of Firstness cannot correspond to an immediate interpretant in a mode of Secondness or Thirdness, because this would mean that the immediate interpretant has MORE information than the dynamic interpretant. Remember, "determines" in this context simply means "has an equal or higher adicity"; so if the DI must have equal or higher adicity than the II, as we previously agreed, then the DI DOES determine the II, in this specific sense. EDWINA: The process is from the II to DI to FI. Not the other way around. JON: One more time--I am NOT discussing the temporal sequence of the semiosic process, but rather the taxonomic order of determination that results in (only) 66 sign classes from 10 trichotomies. 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 .
