Edwina, List: Unfortunately, your response today directly contradicts what you said just yesterday. 1) 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: My apologies. I reread what I wrote - and I don't see that my example nullified my view that the Final Interpretant can't contain more information than is offered to it by the two previous Dynamic and Immediate Interpretants. It should read that the later interpretants can't contain more information than offered within the earlier interpretants. After all, information can be lost in the process from II-Di-Fi. I wrote: "Obviously, these are within the three modal categories. Now - you ask IF the Final Interpretant, which I consider as operating only within 'mind-analysis' and using reason (the mode of Thirdness) , is in a mode of Secondness (and thus, 'tinged' with action) and, since it is linked to the earlier two Interpretants - then, this could be Thirdness-as-Secondness. So, you ask if the earlier Dynamic Interpretant in this same situation can be in a mode of Firstness? Yes, it could be in Thirdness-as-Firstness or Thirdness-as-Secondness. And the Immediate Interpretant, still linked to that Final Interpretant in its mode of Thirdness-as-Secondness, could be in a mode of 3-1 or 3-2. But most certainly not in pure Thirdness or 'Significative' or 'Relative'. That is, the earlier Interpretants cannot contain MORE information than the later ones. They can contain MORE ambiguity than the later ones. " EDWINA on 08/18 (below): So, Thirdness, unpacked, would have the most information within its habits. JON: This part, at least, is consistent. 2) 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? EDWINA: Again, apologies: If the FI is in a mode of Secondness, then the DI has to be also in 2nd. The FI can't have an adicity higher than its DI and II. [I was mixing up Interpretants and Objects, for the DO and IO can 'reduce' where the DO can be in a mode of 2ndness but the IO can have lost that specificity and be in a mode of 1stness]. Thanks, Jon On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 2:38 PM, Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> wrote: ----- 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 .
