----- Original Message ----- From: Jon Alan Schmidt To: Edwina Taborsky Cc: [email protected] Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2015 3:01 PM Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Order of Interpretant Trichotomies for Sign Classes
Edwina, List: Wow, I must have completely misunderstood you before. To clarify (hopefully) once and for all ... JON:1. Which interpretant must have the MOST information, immediate or final/normal? EDWINA: This question can't be answered the way it is posed. You can't declare that either the Immediate OR Final Interpretant MUST have the most information. After all, all three Interpretants could be in the same categorical mode of Firstness, and so- ALL would have the SAME amount of information. But, in my view, if the Immediate is in a mode of Firstness or Secondness, then, the Final CANNOT be in a mode of Thirdness. That would imply that it had MORE information than the two previous Interpretants..and I'd want to know where this information came from! JON: 2. Which mode corresponds to the MOST information, Firstness or Thirdness? EDWINA: The modes can even be considered as having the same amount of 'energy' (though this doesn't translate to information) even though presented in different forms. Firstness is packed full of energy but it's qualitative or ambiguous energy and as such, in itself offers little information. Secondness can be packed full of energy but it's formatted differently, in discrete specifics which we can consider as specific information. Thirdness is equally full of energy but it's generalized into rules - which are vital to formatting information. So, Thirdness, unpacked, would have the most information within its habits. JON: 3. If the dynamic interpretant is a Second, which interpretant can be a First--immediate or final/normal? EDWINA: I presume you are referring to modal categories. In my view, if the DI is in a mode of Secondness, then, the Final Interpretant could be in a mode of Secondness or Firstness. The Immediate Interpretant could also be in a mode of Secondness. I know that you consider that if the DI is in a mode of Secondness, that the II could be in a mode of Firstness. I simply don't see how the 'input' of this triad of interpretants (the II) could have a weaker informational mode than the output (the FI). How do you, for example, move your knowledge base about an external object or event from this FI (at the time) of, let's say, Firstness or Secondness...to moving closer to the truth of that external object/event? By MORE thought, MORE semiosic information being added, so that, over time, your Interpretants would be ALL in a mode of Thirdness! Thanks, 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 .
