Jon, list, You wrote: "Still, there seems to be a sense in which the If is the genuine Interpretant, the Id is the degenerate Interpretant, and the Ii is the doubly degenerate Interpretant."
I thought that was just what I was suggesting. At least that was what I meant. so that if that didn't come across clearly, I apologize. JAS: I think of involution as something that proceeds *across *each trichotomy, such that a Necessitant involves an Existent, which involves a Possible--e.g., a Symbol involves an Index, which involves an Icon--rather than *between *different trichotomies. I see no reason to limit the concept of logical involution to the trichotomies of Peirce's late taxonomy. Although I think they have an important role to play in those trichotomies, they also figure in many, many others, something I've noted frequently over the years. And not just in semeiotics, but in phenomenology, metaphysics, the classification of the sciences, etc. JAS: As for why I am advocating this particular sequence of three Interpretants and ten divisions altogether, I explained my entire rationale in my three posts that launched this thread. Rather than repeat myself, I will just ask--which aspects of that lengthy explanation remain unclear to you? . You did not respond to my post addressed to you prior to this one. That might have been helpful. But please, there's no need for you to repeat any part of your "lengthy explanation" for my sake. JAS: I wonder if "determination" in the logical sense, which is the basis for the order of the ten trichotomies, is subtly different from "determination" in whatever sense pertains to an instance of concrete semiosis. This what *exactly* I was asking. I too hope Jeff can shed some light on it. JAS: I am puzzled by your comment about "terminological problems in the list." By and large, I have simply duplicated the terms that Peirce used in the December 1908 draft letter to Lady Welby (EP 2:488-490), his last attempt at laying out the entire taxonomy. The only exceptions are reverting to Tone/Token/Type (as Peirce himself hinted), Gratific/Actuous/Temperative, and Abducent/Inducent/Deducent (the last two are shorthand from earlier versions). I wasn't questioning your use of Peirce "last attempt at laying out the entire taxonomy" but, rather, suggesting that Peirce's neologisms in that "last attempt" aren't necessarily very helpful in all cases, and that doing things like "reverting to Tone/Token/Type" might not be a bad idea. I also suggested that there's no reason to believe that Peirce might not have reconsidered any or all of those neologisms (as he hinted at as regards Tone/Token/Type); who knows? But I'm dropping out of this discussion. Jon, because I don't feel that it's been very productive for me and, this last post of yours suggests strongly that I have nothing useful or helpful to offer you as well. No doubt there are others here who will join you in this inquiry, but I have nothing to add (even having recently reviewed your "three posts that launched this thread"). Best, Gary *Gary Richmond* *Philosophy and Critical Thinking* *Communication Studies* *LaGuardia College of the City University of New York* *718 482-5690* On Wed, Apr 4, 2018 at 9:59 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt <[email protected]> wrote: > Gary R., List: > > If there is involution among the three Interpretants, it would be in the > opposite order from what you suggested--the If involves the Id, which > involves the Ii. However, I think of involution as something that proceeds > *across > *each trichotomy, such that a Necessitant involves an Existent, which > involves a Possible--e.g., a Symbol involves an Index, which involves an > Icon--rather than *between *different trichotomies. Still, there seems > to be a sense in which the If is the genuine Interpretant, the Id is the > degenerate Interpretant, and the Ii is the doubly degenerate Interpretant. > > As for why I am advocating this particular sequence of three Interpretants > and ten divisions altogether, I explained my entire rationale in my three > posts that launched this thread. Rather than repeat myself, I will just > ask--which aspects of that lengthy explanation remain unclear to you? > > I wonder if "determination" in the logical sense, which is the basis for > the order of the ten trichotomies, is subtly different from "determination" > in whatever sense pertains to an instance of concrete semiosis. I am > hoping that Jeff will respond to my requests for clarification earlier > today, and that his doing so will shed some further light on this. > > I am puzzled by your comment about "terminological problems in the list." > By and large, I have simply duplicated the terms that Peirce used in the > December 1908 draft letter to Lady Welby (EP 2:488-490), his last attempt > at laying out the entire taxonomy. The only exceptions are reverting to > Tone/Token/Type (as Peirce himself hinted), Gratific/Actuous/Temperative, > and Abducent/Inducent/Deducent (the last two are shorthand from earlier > versions). > > Regards, > > Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA > Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman > www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt > > On Wed, Apr 4, 2018 at 2:06 PM, Gary Richmond <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Jon S, list, >> >> A question for the sake of clarity. >> >> Preceding your list of the 10 orders of determination you wrote: >> >> JAS: "In summary, I now believe that the complete order of >> determination--*the **logical sequence of the semiotic Correlates and >> their Relations, not necessarily their temporal** sequence in a concrete >> instance of semiosis*--is as follows" (emphasis added). >> >> >> Then your list of these 10: >> >> 1. Mode of Being of the Dynamic Object (Od) - Abstractive, >> Concretive, Collective. >> 2. Mode of Presentation of the Immediate Object (Oi) - Descriptive, >> Designative, Copulative. >> 3. Mode of Apprehension or Presentation of the Sign (S) - Tone, >> Token, Type. >> 4. Nature of Reference (Od-S) - Icon, Index, Symbol. >> 5. Purpose of the Final Interpretant (If) - Gratific, Actuous (to >> produce action), Temperative (to produce self-control). >> 6. Mode of Being of the Dynamic Interpretant (Id) - Sympathetic >> (feeling), Percussive (exertion), Usual (another Sign). >> 7. Mode of Presentation of the Immediate Interpretant (Ii) - >> Hypothetic, Categorical, Relative. >> 8. Nature of Intended Influence (S-If) - Seme (rheme/term), Pheme >> (dicisign/proposition), Delome (argument). >> 9. Manner of Appeal (S-Id) - Suggestive (presented), Imperative >> (urged), Indicative (submitted). >> 10. Nature of Assurance (S-Od-If) - Abducent (instinct), Inducent >> (experience), Deducent (form). >> >> Also, specifically regarding the determination of the three Interpretants >> you wrote: >> >> >> >> JAS: "Hence the order of determination of the three Interpretants is If, >> Id, Ii; and since Peirce explicitly indicated that Od, Oi, and S precede >> these (EP 2:481; 1908), only the arrangement of the Relation trichotomies >> remains to be established." >> >> >> Are you suggesting that there might perhaps be some sort of logical >> *involution* happening here (at numbers 5-7) in the sense of that term >> as employed in "The Logic of Mathematics" at CP 1.490 such that 7 involves >> 6 which involves 5)? For the determination of the three Interpretants in >> your "complete order of determination of the semiotic Correlates and >> their Relations" seems not only not to be temporal (in the sense that >> you noted in the first snippet above, tempered a bit by the phrase "not >> necessarily"); nor can I make much sense of these three from the standpoint >> of "determination." Why are they ordered as they are in this sequence? >> >> As you suggested that you yourself are, I too have become confused by >> what Peirce means by "determination," not only as regards the three >> Interpretants, but throughout the 10. Even what had once seemed clear >> enough and simple enough to me, viz., that the Od *determines* the Oi >> which in term *determines* the S which *determines* *some* I (I had >> thought firstly that this would likely be the Ii), makes we wonder if >> Peirce is using *determination* in the same sense throughout. It seems >> to me that he is not, but I would be hard pressed to explain, for example, >> how the determination of the Oi by the Od differs from that of the S by the >> Oi (of course we're concerned here in any event with logical and not >> physical determination). >> >> Am I still somehow conflating facets of this abstract list of the order >> of determination with determination in some "concrete instance of >> semiosis"? Perhaps I am. >> >> But then, again, why *this* sequence of the 10? Your list at first blush >> makes sense to me, but for now creates more questions than answers in my >> mind. >> >> I also continue to find terminological problems in the list, especially >> if it is ever to become more generally useful. Which semeiotic or other >> scientific community is your list meant to address? Peirce's endless >> re-neologizing becomes for me a significant problem in his late semeiotic, >> although he no doubt does this to clarify (at least for himself) certain >> subtle distinctions, only some of which can I yet fully appreciate (he'll >> also in places offer a term x, "*or*" term y--I'd suggest that to the >> end he was constantly experimenting, never fully settling on a 'final' or >> 'best' terminology). >> >> Best, >> >> Gary >> *Gary Richmond* >> *Philosophy and Critical Thinking* >> *Communication Studies* >> *LaGuardia College of the City University of New York* >> *718 482-5690* >> > > > ----------------------------- > 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 .
