Jeff, List: Thanks for asking. Writing this response has actually clarified some things in my own mind and sparked one new idea, so I hope that you likewise find reading it helpful.
The overall purpose of the diagram is to illustrate how a continuum of connected Signs--which thus constitute *one *Sign in accordance with Peirce's theorem of the science of semeiotics (R 1476:36[5-1/2]; c. 1904)--might convey a Form from the Dynamic Object (DO, green rectangle) to the Final Interpretant (FI, orange rectangle). The key hypothesis is that whenever the Dynamic Interpretant (DI) of one Sign is *another *Sign--not a feeling or exertion--the Immediate *Interpretant *(II) of the first Sign serves as the Immediate *Object* (IO) of the second Sign; i.e., the Form that the first Sign *communicates *is the same Form that the second Sign *signifies*. In every "individual" instance along the way, the Sign is uttered by one Quasi-mind (A) and interpreted by another (B)--although these may be temporally successive versions of the *same *Quasi-mind--such that they are "welded" in that Sign (A ∩ B). The Form is modified by this "transmission" process, such that the Sign's II is different from its IO, and thus its DI is different from itself. Blue circles are IOs, purple triangles are Signs, and red circles are IIs. However, each circle is half blue and half red in accordance with the key hypothesis. The blue and red lines indicate that each IO and II is *internal *to its corresponding Sign, such that it has no distinct relations of its own; perhaps it would be more perspicuous to put them in direct contact with the purple triangle instead. The purple arrows represent each Sign's determination of another Sign as its DI. The large green- and orange-outlined arrows represent the DO's overall determination of the connected Signs and their overall determination of the FI, respectively. I am currently inclined to think that the governing *triadic *relation is DO-S-FI, where S is the *entire continuum *of Signs; and that each "individual" Sign is in *dyadic *relations with the DO and FI (same for all), as well as its "individual" DI (the succeeding Sign). It occurs to me now that the diagram also suggests a particular way to interpret Peirce's various statements about the *being *of a Sign. Every Sign is a Real continuum of *potential *Replicas, and every *actual *Replica is an individual instance of that one Sign. The circles correspond to Form (IO/II), the triangles correspond to Matter (Replicas), and the rectangles correspond to the union of Matter with Form. In the case of the DO, it is a *dyadic *determination of Matter *by *Form (NEM 4:297); in the case of the FI, it is a *triadic *determination of Matter *to *Form (NEM 4:300)--i.e., Entelechy. Of course, this is even more tentative than everything else that I have been suggesting lately. It implies that, although every Replica of a given Sign has the same DO and FI, two Replicas of the same Sign could have different IOs, IIs, and DIs--in fact, one can be the DI of the other; but perhaps this is precisely why *concrete *semiosis exhibits a degree of context-dependence. I look forward to getting some further feedback on all of this. Regards, Jon S. On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 12:33 PM, Jeffrey Brian Downard < [email protected]> wrote: > Jon S, List, > > The diagram you have shared is not clear, at least not to me. Labels for > the various parts of the diagrams, including the circles, triangles, lines > and arrows along explanations of what you are trying to illustrate would > probably help along. I'd also appreciate some indication of how you are > trying to illustrate the role of the different kinds of relations that are > involved--both dyadic and triadic. > > Thanks, > > Jeff > Jeffrey Downard > Associate Professor > Department of Philosophy > Northern Arizona University > (o) 928 523-8354 <(928)%20523-8354> > > ------------------------------ > *From:* Jon Alan Schmidt <[email protected]> > *Sent:* Thursday, March 22, 2018 9:45 AM > *To:* Peirce-L > *Subject:* Re: [PEIRCE-L] Three Interpretants > > Gary F., List: > > I have trouble translating Peirce's assignments of the two Objects and > three Interpretants in these two specific examples into coherent and > mutually compatible definitions for them. Obviously one possible > explanation for this is that I simply do not correctly understand his > theory of semeiotic. As we have noted before, our learning styles and ways > of thinking are evidently quite different--I seek a single definition for > each term, such that they all fit together within a comprehensive model. > My objective is to integrate everything in a way that makes sense to me, > and then try to explain it in a way that makes sense to others; but since > Peirce himself offered different and sometimes conflicting definitions, > others will always be able to quibble with any such model and cite him to > bolster their case. > > I am also not content to leave certain questions open just because Peirce > did. As Gary R. has noted, he fully expected his successors to go well > beyond the groundwork that he laid as "a pioneer, or rather a backwoodsman" > (EP 2:413; 1907). While there is indeed disagreement among Peirce scholars > about how to reconcile the various names and trichotomies of Interpretants, > I do not recall ever coming across a single passage in his own writings > where he indicated that there are more than three. Are you aware of any? > > I tried to explain my initial reasoning with an example, and then with a > diagram (https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/arc/peirce-l/2018-03/msg00191/ > Semiosis.jpg). Were you also unable to follow *that* reasoning? > > Thanks, > > Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA > Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman > www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt > > On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 10:53 AM, <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Jon, >> >> In that 1909 letter to James, Peirce is using examples of signs to give >> James an idea of what he means by “sign”, “object,” “interpretant” and how >> he distinguishes between subtypes of them. I read it by applying those >> terms to those examples (and more generally to those types of signs). What >> more “light” is needed? I don’t know what you mean by “making heads or >> tails” of it. Maybe that’s why I can’t make heads or tails of your >> reasoning. >> >> One of the questions Peirce left open is the one I asked you, whether the >> different trichotomies of interpretants differ in identity or in name only. >> (At least, I know there is disagreement among Peircean scholars on that >> point, and I don’t know of any text where Peirce directly answers that >> question.) As far as I can tell, you are proceeding on the assumption that >> there are only three interpretants despite the plethora of names for them, >> and trying to come up a meta-schema that will sort out the names by >> reducing them to three concepts. I see no need to do that, and I’m stymied >> by your hypotheses because I see no way to evaluate them inductively. >> Anyway, if I could follow your reasoning, I wouldn’t be getting its >> implications wrong, as you say I did. >> >> Gary f. >> >> } Only those who will risk going too far can possibly find out how far >> one can go. [T.S. Eliot] { >> >> http://gnusystems.ca/wp/ }{ *Turning Signs* gateway >> >
----------------------------- 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 .
