Jon - OK - that makes sense. The way you were writing it, I mistook your outline for complete openness at each stage, whereas - as you point out now - the constraints at each site are immediate...a possible II can only provide a specific rather than open actual DI.
What is interesting is that these sites, i.e., the Representamen and the three Interpretants can also at the same time be affected by other semiosic interactions from other sites..and so, we could have an II in Firstness in one 'thread' so to speak..that is affected by indexical information from another 'thread'..and so...the DI in the first thread might transform into a mode of Secondness or more. Again, my point is that the network is not linear but complex - at all sites or nodes. Edwina ----- Original Message ----- From: Jon Alan Schmidt To: Edwina Taborsky Cc: [email protected] Sent: Thursday, October 20, 2016 10:28 AM Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Universes and Categories (was Peirce's Cosmology) 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 To: Auke van Breemen 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 .
----------------------------- 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 .
