Jon - I think it's time we ended this thread or went off-line. It must be tedious in the extreme for others on the list. I'll just answer this one - and then, if you want to continue the debate, please do so off-list. Edwina ----- Original Message ----- From: Jon Alan Schmidt To: Edwina Taborsky Cc: [email protected] Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2015 6:10 PM Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Order of Interpretant Trichotomies for Sign Classes
Edwina, List: Thank you for the clarification. Just to confirm, this is what I now understand to be your actual view. Jon: 1. Information never increases during the semeiosic process; it either stays the same or decreases. EDWINA: Well, yes and no - The semiosic process moves ambiguity to information - but that's within the whole process. You have focused ONLY on the output, the three Interpretants and that's what my answers were referring to. But - If you consider the whole triad, then, the vital importance of the Representamen, which transforms input data from the Dynamic/Imm Objects should be considered. So, an unknown (ambiguous) sound from the outside can be transformed by the knowledge embedded in the Representamen to one's specific informed conclusion 'oh, that's the door bell'. JON: 2. The temporal sequence of the three interpretants during the semeiosic process is immediate, then dynamic, then final. EDWINA: Yes. JON: 3. From #1 and #2, the final interpretant cannot have MORE information than the dynamic interpretant, which cannot have MORE information than the immediate interpretant. EDWINA: Agreed. The FI cannot have more information unless some is added..from a networking with other Signs. This would reduce the ambiguity and clarify the result. Again - this is referring only to what's going on AFTER the mediation of the Representamen. JON: 4. More information entails less ambiguity, while less information entails greater ambiguity. EDWINA: Agreed - understanding that ambiguity does NOT mean 'generalizations'. The comparison should only be between Firstness and Secondness. JON: 5. From #3 and #4, the immediate interpretant cannot be MORE ambiguous than the dynamic intepretant, which cannot be MORE ambiguous than the final interpretant. EDWINA: Can the II be in a mode of Firstness while the DI is in a mode of Secondness? I don't think so. JON: 6. A higher-mode interpretant has MORE information than a lower-mode interpretant; i.e., a Third has MORE information than a Second, which has MORE information than a First. EDWINA: I don't think your comparison is accurate; the types of information are different - the FORM of the information is different; Secondness Information is local, particular, specific, while Thirdness Information is general and habitual modes. Now, Thirdness can be, possibly, reduced to specifics, but in its own nature, its information is 'common' and habitual rather than particular. JON: 7. From #3 and #6, if the immediate interpretant is a First (qualitative/hypothetic), then the dynamic and final interpretants must also be Firsts (sympathetic/congruentive and gratific). 8. From #3 and #6, if the final interpretant is a Third (to produce self-control), then the dynamic and immediate interpretants must also be Thirds (usual and logical/relative). EDWINA: Yes. You agree with all of these statements, right? 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 .
