Ben, list,
I think, the three inferences may be said to be posessed by every sign, not with respect to the meaning of the sign, but with respect to, as what sign the sign is treated, that is, which sign class it (assumedly by the interpreter) belongs to. Which sign class it belongs to, depends on what sign classes it does not belong to. That is so, because a legisign is also a sinisign, and a qualisign too. For example in a written word the sinsign character of this legisign is (I think), that it is a string of letters without interruption, and the qualisign character eg. the colour of the letters. So, the fact that it has a colour does not say which class it belongs to. The class one can only define (which is done subconsciously), by subconscious inferences about what the sign is not: It does not contain interruptions (so not more than one word), so it cannot be an argument (example for deduction), and probably is not dicentic. A weathercock has only one closed boundary by looking at it, so it probably is not a word, because most words contain more than one letter (example for induction). So much for the idea, that every sign contains inference (I think this was the topic), though I have not been talking about the idea about the three kinds of interpretant anymore.
Best,
Helmut
Helmut, list,
The immediate, dynamical, and final interpretants are 1st, 2nd, and 3rd,
respectively, in their trichotomy, and abduction, induction, and
deduction are usually considered 1st, 2nd, and 3rd, respectively in
their trichotomy. So they align in some sense; they rhyme, 1st with 1st,
2nd with 2nd, and 3rd with 3rd, as ideas. On the other hand, for my part
I haven't noticed a particular functional connection among those two
trichotomies.
Best, Ben
On 11/9/2015 12:47 PM, Helmut Raulien wrote:
> Ben, List,
>
> I am sorry for having not known this (scientifical) meaning of
> "degenerate". Now, do you think, that abduction, induction, and
> deduction somehow can be assigned to the immediate, dynamical, and
> final interpretant? In this case, maybe, every sign "posesses" these
> three inferences, because: Quote from the guide for the perplexed,
> page 84: "And, as Peirce further explains, the immediate, dynamic, and
> final interpretant "are posessed by every sign" (R339:287r).". Well,
> maybe it also depends on what "posessed" in this case means?
>
> Best,
> Helmut
>
> 09. November 2015 um 15:01 Uhr
> Benjamin Udell wrote
>
-----------------------------
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 .
The immediate, dynamical, and final interpretants are 1st, 2nd, and 3rd,
respectively, in their trichotomy, and abduction, induction, and
deduction are usually considered 1st, 2nd, and 3rd, respectively in
their trichotomy. So they align in some sense; they rhyme, 1st with 1st,
2nd with 2nd, and 3rd with 3rd, as ideas. On the other hand, for my part
I haven't noticed a particular functional connection among those two
trichotomies.
Best, Ben
On 11/9/2015 12:47 PM, Helmut Raulien wrote:
> Ben, List,
>
> I am sorry for having not known this (scientifical) meaning of
> "degenerate". Now, do you think, that abduction, induction, and
> deduction somehow can be assigned to the immediate, dynamical, and
> final interpretant? In this case, maybe, every sign "posesses" these
> three inferences, because: Quote from the guide for the perplexed,
> page 84: "And, as Peirce further explains, the immediate, dynamic, and
> final interpretant "are posessed by every sign" (R339:287r).". Well,
> maybe it also depends on what "posessed" in this case means?
>
> Best,
> Helmut
>
> 09. November 2015 um 15:01 Uhr
> Benjamin Udell wrote
>
-----------------------------
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 .
