Jon, a few responses interleaved …
Gary f. From: Jon Alan Schmidt [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 29-Aug-16 12:35 Gary F., List: GF: Jon, to answer your question to me that’s embedded near the end of your post, yes, you’ve gone a long way here toward a schema of the interpretants that makes sense to me, and is entirely compatible with SS 111 (1909) (also included in your post), which to me is Peirce’s clearest statement of the matter. That is encouraging, thanks. GF: Based on that, I think we can say that the immediate interpretant is the least determinate of the three, and yet it determines the dynamic interpretant in the sense that it constrains (puts some vague limits around) the possible behavior resulting from the communication. I agree, and likewise the Dynamic Interpretant determines the Final Interpretant in the sense that it constrains the possible habits resulting from its repetition; at least, that is my hypothesis at the moment. GF: But I’m not sure how all this maps onto Jeff’s three-strata diagram. I’ll have to look into that further. It is consistent with it in terms of the sequence of the three interpretants. The next question is whether it adheres to what I have previously called the "rule of determination" as stipulated by Peirce--"It is evident that a Possible can determine nothing but a Possible; it is equally so that a Necessitant can be determined by nothing but a Necessitant" (EP 2.481). This is what makes three trichotomies result in only ten sign classes, rather than 27; and ten trichotomies result in only 66 sign classes, rather than 59,049. In this case, if the Immediate Interpretant is a Possible--i.e., a range of possible feelings only--then the Dynamic and Final Interpretants must be an actual feeling and a habit of feeling, respectively. If the Final Interpretant is a Necessitant--i.e., a habit of thought--then the Immediate and Dynamic Interpretants must be a range of possible thoughts and an actual thought, respectively. The other potential combinations are constrained accordingly. I happen to think that this works just fine. [GF]: Me too, so far! GF: And maybe compare it with Vinicius Romanini’s “solenoid of semiosis,” http://www.minutesemeiotic.org/?p=30. which is a somewhat different attempt at a “minute” classification of sign types. I would argue that it is a very different attempt. Romanini postulates an eleventh trichotomy that Peirce never recognized (S-Od-Id), and puts all of them in a completely different sequence. [GF]: I’ve struggled with Vinicius’ presentation, mostly I think for terminological reasons, but haven’t reached the point yet where I feel I understand it well enough to criticize it. Peirce quite clearly held that the first three are Od => Oi => S, but it gets quite a bit fuzzier when we come to the S-Od relation and the six trichotomies for the interpretants and their relations to the sign. The default in most of the literature seems to be S-Od => Ii => Id => If => S-Id => S-If => S-Od-If based on CP 8.367-374. Jeff's diagram is consistent with this, except that he has the three interpretants coming before the S-Od relation, presumably based on EP 2.481. The question here is whether an icon can produce an action or a thought, rather than being constrained to producing feelings only. If the former, then Jeff's sequence is correct; the interpretants can be Actuals (actions) or Necessitants (thoughts) even when the S-Od relation is a Possible (iconic). If the latter, then the more common sequence is correct; if the S-Od is a Possible (iconic), then all of the Interpretants must also be Possibles (feelings). I currently find the latter analysis more persuasive, especially since I see no reason why the interpretants should play any role in determining the S-Od relation; in fact, I think that Peirce took the contrary view. CSP: A sign therefore is an object which is in relation to its object on the one hand and to an interpretant on the other, in such a way as to bring the interpretant into a relation to the object, corresponding to its own relation to the object. I might say 'similar to its own' for a correspondence consists in a similarity; but perhaps correspondence is narrower. (CP 8.332; 1904) It seems to me that if the Sign determines the Interpretant to have the same (or at least similar) relation to its Object as itself, then that relation must also contribute to determining the Interpretant--i.e., all three Interpretants--rather than the other way around. As for the Sign-Interpretant relations, I previously pointed out Peirce's suggestion (CP 8.337-338; 1904) that S-If (Rheme/Dicent/Argument) precedes S-Id (presented/urged/submitted), as well as Short's concurrence that was accompanied by a table of the ten plausible sign classes that result from the ordering Ii => S-If => S-Id. Since a relation presumably cannot determine any of its constituents, this gives Ii => Id => If => S-If => S-Id => S-Od-If. If this is correct, and if I am right to define the Final Interpretant as the habit that would result from repetition of the Dynamic Interpretant, [GF]: I have my doubts about that relation between the Dynamic and Final Interpretants, because of passages like this in Peirce: [[ Now it is of the essence of the Sign to determine certain Ideas, i.e. certain Possibles; and it is the essence of any Tendency to determine Occurrences. Therefore, an Actisign or a Potisign may be a Copulative. But no Occurrence or collection of occurrences can logically determine a Habit or other Tendency. … It is true that physiological and some other habits are determined by what has been done; but not by those occurrences of themselves, but only because there is a special Tendency by virtue of which what has been done will be done oftener than what has not been done. In general, it is of the essence of a Real Tendency that no Actual Occurrence can of itself determine it in any way. ] EP2:487-8 ] As far as I can tell this is compatible with the rule that a Possible can determine nothing but a Possible and a Necessitant can be determined by nothing but a Necessitant, but not compatible with the idea that Id determines If. But I’m called away now, and that’s as far as I’ve got in thinking this through … then a Rheme can be intended to produce any kind of habit (feeling, action, or thought), while an Argument can only be intended to produce a habit of thought. But that seems exactly backwards--an Argument should be able to produce any kind of habit, while a Rheme should only be able to produce a habit of feeling; yet the S-If relation presumably cannot determine the Final Interpretant, which is one of its constituents. The only alternative that I can see at the moment is the admittedly radical one of reassigning Rheme/Dicent/Argument to the S-Id relation, rather than the S-If relation; and likewise reassigning presented/urged/submitted to the S-If relation, rather than the S-Id relation. This even makes some sense to me because the Sign's "influence" (S-Id) is now connected with its actual nature (Id), while its "manner of appeal" (S-If) is now connected with its purpose (If), rather than vice-versa. The resulting sequence is Od => Oi => S => S-Od => Ii (range of possible feelings/actions/thoughts) => Id (actual feeling/action/thought produced) => S-Id (Rheme/Dicent/Argument) => If (habit of feeling/action/thought) => S-If (presented/urged/submitted) => Od-S-If (assurance of instinct/experience/form). This has the virtue of formal consistency in that each trichotomy for a relation always comes immediately after the last trichotomy for one of its constituents. But it is all getting rather speculative now, so once again I would welcome any feedback. I am especially interested in better understanding why Peirce linked his earlier trichotomy for interpretants in general with the Final Interpretant in particular, rather than the Dynamic Interpretant. Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt <http://www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt> - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt <http://twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt>
----------------------------- 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 .
