Jon, Edwina, list,
Jon wrote:
JAS: I find it misleading to say that Peirce "put the Interpretant first"
in CP 2.254. . . As such, the first trichotomy provides the noun in each
of the class names, while the other two trichotomies supply the modifying
adjectives; and it is only because adjectives always come *before* nouns in
English that the S-FI and S-DO terms precede the S term. In another
language (e.g., Spanish) where adjectives can come *after* the nouns that
they modify, one would presumably refer to a Sinsign Indexical Rhematic.
I disagree. As I just wrote in response to Edwina, it is my understanding
that Peirce named the 10 classes in the Order of Involution, necessarily
beginning with the Interpretant. Since I associate the Interpretant with
3ns, Object with 2ns, and the Sign itself with 1ns, this seems simply the
ilnvolutional order of naming them as 3ns involves 2ns involves 1ns == I
involves O involves S. In my view, they would have been named in this order
even had Peirce been Spanish speaking.
JAS: I also find it misleading to suggest that the Sign/Representamen comes
first in semiosis. As I have noted recently, since the Sign *mediates
between*the Object and Interpretant, the "directionality" is instead *from *the
Object *through *the Sign *to *the Interpretant.
Of course I completely agree.
JAS: Moreover, the order of (logical/semeiotic) determination per EP 2:481
is not DO-IO-S-II-DI-FI, but DO-IO-S-FI-DI-II; the Destinate Interpretant
is the Final Interpretant and the Explicit Interpretant is the Immediate
Interpretant, not the other way around.
While I have *tended *to agree with your schema, I think it might be
helpful for those following these grammatical discussions if you were to
explain your understanding of the "logical order of determination" ("the
Destinate Interpretant is the Final Interpretant and the Explicit
Interpretant is the Immediate Interpretant, not the other way around") as
at first blush it may seem counterintuitive (it certainly did to me!)
JAS: Finally, while Peirce's Categories do not directly apply to Sign
classification, they are reflected in the three Universes of Possibles,
Existents, and Necessitants by which Signs are divided in each of the ten
trichotomies of his 1908 taxonomy.
If one associates, as I do, the Sign with 1ns (the simplest), the Object
with 2ns (the middling complexity), and the Interpretant with 3ns (the most
complex), then there is at least a double categorial involvement, that for
each correlate (e.g. icon/index/symbol) and that of the involution of each
sign class as noted earlier. Indeed, I find at least one, perhaps two other
ways in which the categories may play a part in the structuring of the
diagram of the 10 classes. But that's a discussion for another day.
Best,
Gary
*Gary Richmond*
*Philosophy and Critical Thinking*
*Communication Studies*
*LaGuardia College of the City University of New York*
*718 482-5690*
On Wed, Aug 29, 2018 at 3:46 PM Jon Alan Schmidt <jonalanschm...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Edwina, Cecile, List:
>
> I find it misleading to say that Peirce "put the Interpretant first" in CP
> 2.254. The three trichotomies of his 1903 taxonomy correspond to the Sign
> *itself
> *as Qualisign/Sinsign/Legisign, the *relation* of the Sign to its
> (Dynamic) Object as Icon/Index/Symbol, and the *relation *of the Sign to
> its (Final) Interpretant as Rheme/Dicent/Argument. As such, the first
> trichotomy provides the noun in each of the class names, while the other
> two trichotomies supply the modifying adjectives; and it is only because
> adjectives always come *before* nouns in English that the S-FI and S-DO
> terms precede the S term. In another language (e.g., Spanish) where
> adjectives can come *after* the nouns that they modify, one would
> presumably refer to a Sinsign Indexical Rhematic.
>
> I also find it misleading to suggest that the Sign/Representamen comes
> first in semiosis. As I have noted recently, since the Sign *mediates
> between* the Object and Interpretant, the "directionality" is instead *from
> *the Object *through *the Sign *to *the Interpretant. Moreover, the
> order of (logical/semeiotic) determination per EP 2:481 is not
> DO-IO-S-II-DI-FI, but DO-IO-S-FI-DI-II; the Destinate Interpretant is the
> Final Interpretant and the Explicit Interpretant is the Immediate
> Interpretant, not the other way around.
>
> Finally, while Peirce's Categories do not directly apply to Sign
> classification, they are reflected in the three Universes of Possibles,
> Existents, and Necessitants by which Signs are divided in each of the ten
> trichotomies of his 1908 taxonomy.
>
> Regards,
>
> Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
> Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman
> www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
>
> On Wed, Aug 29, 2018 at 12:59 PM, Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca>
> wrote:
>
>> Cecile, list
>>
>> I refer to 2.254 - I don't know why his outline puts the Interpretant,
>> or, Conclusion, first in the 'name' eg a Rhematic Indexical Sinsign.
>>
>> After all, his semiosic format is actually quite syllogistic, with the
>> major premiss [Representamen] as 'first in line of action/authority',
>> followed by the input from the minor premiss or Dynamic Object
>> data....leading to the conclusion/Interpretant.
>>
>> My point is that this outline of order, and any outline of order such as
>> his order-of-determination [DO-IO-R-II-DI-FI] should not be confused with
>> the modal categories of Firstness, Secondness, Thirdness - which are not
>> ordinal but categorical or descriptive.
>>
>> Edwina
>>
>> On Wed 29/08/18 9:27 AM , Cécile Ménieu-Cosculluela
>> cecile.coscullu...@univ-pau.fr sent:
>>
>> Edwina, Jeff, Stephen, List,
>>
>> I appreciate your answers. Thank you. I'm now wondering why CP 2.254
>> could be interpreted as meaning that Peirce put the interpretant first, as
>> mentioned in Edwina's post that says:
>>
>> In Peirce's ten classes of signs - see 2.254, he actually puts the
>> Interpretant first, followed by the Object, and last - the Representamen!
>>
>> CP 2.254 The three trichotomies of Signs result together in dividing
>> Signs into TEN CLASSES OF SIGNS, of which numerous subdivisions have to be
>> considered. The ten classes are as follows: First: A Qualisign [e.g., a
>> feeling of "red"] is any quality in so far as it is a sign. Since a quality
>> is whatever it is positively in itself, a quality can only denote an object
>> by virtue of some common ingredient or similarity; so that a Qualisign is
>> necessarily an Icon. Further, since a quality is a mere logical
>> possibility, it can only be interpreted as a sign of essence, that is, as a
>> Rheme.
>>
>> Also, it seems to me that the order of semiosic actions does refer to the
>> modal categories (if by "modal categories" we mean the categories of the
>> modes of being of firstness, secondness, and thirdness) so I don't get the
>> point you're making here, Edwina:
>>
>> note, that the terms of First, Second, Third do NOT refer to the modal
>> categories, but to the order of semiosic actions
>>
>> Best regards to you all.
>>
>> Cécile
>> Cécile Ménieu-Cosculluela, Ph.D.
>> Associate Professor of English
>>
>> [image: Logo Université de Pau et des pays de l'Adour]
>> <http://www.univ-pau.fr/>
>> Collège Sciences Sociales et Humanités
>> Avenue du Doyen Poplawski
>> BP 1160 - 64013 PAU
>> FRANCE
>> http://www.univ-pau.fr
>>
>>
-----------------------------
PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L
to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To
UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the
line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
