Edwina, List: Unfortunately, your response today directly contradicts what you said just yesterday.
EDWINA on 08/18 (below): 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: This says that the final interpretant cannot have MORE information than the immediate interpretant. But previously ... EDWINA on 08/17 ( http://article.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/16975): That is, the earlier Interpretants cannot contain MORE information than the later ones. JON: This says that the (earlier) immediate interpretant cannot have MORE information than the (later) final interpretant. Which is it? EDWINA on 08/18 (below): So, Thirdness, unpacked, would have the most information within its habits. JON: This part, at least, is consistent. EDWINA on 08/18 (below): 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. JON: This says that the dynamic interpretant must have an adicity that is equal to or higher than that of the final interpretant. But previously ... EDWINA on 08/17 ( http://article.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/16978): You suggested that your example of a Final Interpretant was one that was in a mode of Secondness...i.e. it wasn't 'truth-seeking'. So, if it was a Second, then, the DI has to be in a less 'energy-intensive' mode, either in a Firstness or Secondness, and the same with the Immediate Interpretant. If the FI is in a mode of Secondness, AND, in your example, the DI is in Firstness, then, of course, the II must be in a mode of Firstness. It cannot be in a higher energy-intensive mode! JON: This says that the final interpretant must have an adicity that is equal to or higher than that of the dynamic interpretant (and the immediate interpretant). Which is it? Thanks, Jon On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 2:38 PM, Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> wrote: > > ----- Original Message ----- > *From:* Jon Alan Schmidt <[email protected]> > *To:* Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> > *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 .
