Edwina, List: The idea is that the Immediate Interpretant can be a range of possible feelings, actions, or thoughts; the Dynamic Interpretant can be an occurrence of an actual feeling, action, or thought; and the Final Interpretant can be a habit of feeling, action, or thought. These are all constrained by the rule that a Possible can only determine a Possible, and a Necessitant must be determined by a Necessitant. If the Immediate Interpretant only includes possible feelings, then the Dynamic Interpretant must be an actual feeling, and the Final Interpretant must be a habit of feeling. If the Final Interpretant is a habit of thought, then the Dynamic Interpretant must be an actual thought, and the Immediate Interpretant must include possible thoughts. The other combinations are limited accordingly, resulting in ten arrangements from these three trichotomies.
Regards, Jon On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 9:14 AM, Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> wrote: > Jon, list: > > Jon wrote: > My initial response is that I do not find it plausible to treat the > Immediate, Dynamic, and Normal/Final Interpretants as a division of the > Logical Interpretant. Instead, my current understanding--still tentative, > admittedly--is that the Immediate Interpretant is the range of all *possible > *Interpretants, the Dynamic Interpretant is the occurrence of any *actual > *Interpretant, and the the Final Interpretant is the development of a > *habitual > *Interpretant; i.e., a habit of interpretation. Each of these can then be > trichotomized into feeling, action, and thought. > > I agree, in large part, with the above, i.e., with the description of the > Immediate Interpretant, Dynamic Interpretant and Final. I'd add however > that the Final is to my understanding, not a set of habits, but a valid > correlation with the Dynamic Object. > > Where I remain puzzled is Jon's claim that each of these three > Interpretants can be further refined within the three categories. I can see > the Immediate Interpretant as functioning in the categorical modes of 1-1, > 2-1 and even 3-1 but it must retain some Firstness to function as an > internal 'immediate'. I can see the Dynamic Interpretant as functioning in > 2-2, 2-1..and even 3-2 because it must have some Secondness to function as > an Actual. I am unsure of the Final Interpretant which must include > Thirdness. Is it 3-3, 3-2, 3-1...which then also bind it to the Immediate > and Dynamic Interpretants. Note that these cross-connections filiate the > three Interpretants with each other. I haven't explored these areas of > 'fine-tuning' and so - can only question the supposition. I'm not sure... > > Edwina > > ----- Original Message ----- > *From:* Jon Alan Schmidt <[email protected]> > *To:* Auke van Breemen <[email protected]> > *Cc:* [email protected] > *Sent:* Thursday, October 20, 2016 9:31 AM > *Subject:* Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Universes and Categories (was Peirce's > Cosmology) > > Auke, List: > > I am familiar with the Sheet of Assertion in the Existential Graphs, and I > reviewed both De Tienne's paper and yours from 2007 yesterday. My initial > response is that I do not find it plausible to treat the Immediate, > Dynamic, and Normal/Final Interpretants as a division of the Logical > Interpretant. Instead, my current understanding--still tentative, > admittedly--is that the Immediate Interpretant is the range of all *possible > *Interpretants, the Dynamic Interpretant is the occurrence of any *actual > *Interpretant, and the the Final Interpretant is the development of a > *habitual > *Interpretant; i.e., a habit of interpretation. Each of these can then > be trichotomized into feeling, action, and thought. In my mind, this > follows the order of determination that leads to classification, as well as > the order of semeiotic process. Universes and Categories come into play > with the observation that this approach defines the three Interpretants in > terms of modality, rather than dividing each individual Interpretant on > that basis. > > Regards, > > Jon > > On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 5:11 AM, Auke van Breemen <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Jon, >> >> >> >> Thanks for your questions. Some short answers below. >> >> >> >> With regard to sheets I suggest to read for >> >> a. Sheets of assertion: >> >> Zeman, J. (1977). Peirce's Theory of Signs. In T. A. Seboek (Ed.), A >> Perfusion >> >> of Signs. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. >> >> b. Descriptive sheets >> >> De Tienne: http://www.iupui.edu/~arisbe/menu/library/aboutcsp/detienne/ >> isphanscience.pdf >> >> c. Semiotic sheet, for a first orientation my 2007 paper will do. >> >> *The relevance of the concept semiotic sheet for the current discussion.* >> >> >> >> A signs gives rise to its interpretant sign. Lets picture this as follows: >> >> Sign -proces of interpretation- interpretant/sign -proces of >> interpretation- interpretant/sign – I/S – I/S, etc. >> >> >> >> Short is interested in sign types and focusses on the interpretant/sign. >> My interest is in the intermediate processes between two signs. In order to >> get a run of an interpretation process an interpreting system (of whatever >> nature) must be assumed. Lets reserve the term ‘semiotic sheet’ for this >> interpreting system. This interpreting system is a sign itself, cf Peirce’s >> dictum ‘Man is a sign’. So, interpretation starts when a sign inscribes >> itself in an interpreting sign or semiotic sheet. >> >> (1) Looked at as a first, in itself, we have the radical subjectivist >> (Stamper) or phenomenological view (architectonic of sciences). >> >> (2) Looked at as a second, as related to a sign that inscribes >> itself, we have the actualist (Stamper) or semiotic view, (architectonic of >> sciences). But only to the extend that an interpreting system interprets a >> sign (critic). >> >> (3) Looked at as a thirdness, we have the rhetorical part of >> semiotics. Stamper, being in his 80ies, started back then from Morris and >> didn’t get a clear view on this communicative view on the matter. Here we >> are concerned with two sheets conversing with each other (a,b -> goal of a >> and b,a -> goal of b). >> >> The connection between the two trichotomies of interpretants (emotional, >> energetic and logical; fruit of phenomenological or radical subjectivist >> considerations) and iimmediate, dynamical and normal interpretants; fruit >> of semiotics proper) can be established in 2. It sets of with >> >> >> >> Kant gives the erroneous view that ideas are presented separated and then >> thought together >> >> by the mind. This is his doctrine that a mental synthesis precedes every >> analysis. >> >> What really happens is that something is presented which in itself has no >> parts, but which >> >> nevertheless is analyzed by the mind, that is to say, its having parts >> consists in this that the >> >> mind afterward recognizes those parts in it. Those partial ideas are >> really not in the first >> >> idea, in itself, though they are separated out from it. It is a case of >> destructive distillation. >> >> W6:449, CP 1.384 >> >> >> >> So, interpretation sets of with a collection of qualia. In phaneroscopy >> it is called the phaneren, in semiotics it is termed the emotional >> interpretant: >> >> The first proper significate effect of a sign is a feeling produced by it >> >> [. . . ]. It [a tune; AvB] conveys, and is intended to convey, the >> composer's >> >> musical ideas; but these usually consist merely in a series of feelings >> (CP >> >> 5.475). >> >> >> >> From this further interpretants may evolve. First the energetive >> interpretants (mental, physical), next the logical (immediate, dynamical >> and normal). >> >> >> >> In short: The semiotic sheet is needed if we want to get a hold on the >> process of interpretation. >> >> >> >> Best, Auke >> >> >> >> *Van:* Jon Alan Schmidt [mailto:[email protected]] >> *Verzonden:* woensdag 19 oktober 2016 21:18 >> *Aan:* Auke van Breemen <[email protected]> >> *CC:* [email protected] >> *Onderwerp:* Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Universes and Categories (was Peirce's >> Cosmology) >> >> >> >> Auke, List: >> >> AB: As Tom Short remarked about Peirce’s semiotics: much groping, no >> conclusions. >> >> Yes, Peirce was right to call himself "a pioneer, or rather a >> backwoodsman, in the work of clearing and opening up what I call semiotic" >> (CP 5.488; 1907). >> >> AB: I in particular disagree with your: "However, as I have suggested >> previously, the three Interpretants themselves seem to be more properly >> characterized as possible (Immediate), actual (Dynamic), and habitual >> (Final), with each divided into feeling/action/thought." >> >> It is a working hypothesis, at best. I am certainly open to being >> convinced otherwise. >> >> AB: It disregards the possibility of the sheet of description (De >> Tienne) and a sheet of semiosis (Breemen/Sarbo) as related to each other >> according to the mature division of the sciences. >> >> I am not too familiar with these concepts and would like to learn more >> about them, so I will review your 2007 paper, which I apparently downloaded >> a while ago. Would you mind elaborating their specific relevance to the >> current discussion, and perhaps suggest some additional reading that I >> could do? >> >> >> >> Thanks, >> >> >> Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA >> >> Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman >> >> www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt >> >> >> >> On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 1:34 PM, Auke van Breemen <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> Jon, >> >> >> >> As Tom Short remarked about Peirce’s semiotics: much groping, no >> conclusions. The EP only gives a fragment of the groping. As much of his >> other writings gives a lot more fragments. It may be that only not being >> able to regard the blackboard (or in its mundane character the sheets of >> Assertion, description or semiotics as a sign) that prevented him from >> finishing the system. All ingredients are present. >> >> >> >> I in particular disagree with your: >> >> ." However, as I have suggested previously, the three Interpretants >> *themselves >> *seem to be more properly characterized as possible (Immediate), actual >> (Dynamic), and habitual (Final), with each divided into >> feeling/action/thought. >> >> -- >> >> >> >> This is the Short arrangement of both trichotomies of interpretants. It >> disregards the possibility of the sheet of description (De Tienne) and a >> sheet of semiosis (Breemen/Sarbo) as related to each other according to the >> mature division of the sciences. From a sign type perspective Shorts >> approach makes sense: Each sign has an element of feeling of action and of >> thought, but from a processual approach it is better to apply Ockham’s >> razor in order to find the system behind processes of interpretation. >> Peirce paved the way for that by his notion of involvement. The logical >> note books are key, in combination with Shorts (or Stampers implied) >> criticism of Peirce’s focus on scientific progress in developing a theory >> of interpretation. (Cf personal, scientific and practical needs that >> govern comunication). >> >> >> >> Best, Auke van Breemen >> >>
----------------------------- 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 .
