List: I have posted several different summaries recently of my current (still tentative) understanding of Signs and their relations, which hinges on carefully and consistently differentiating a *Sign* from its embodiment in a *Replica*, and both of these from an *Instance* of the Sign as a one-time event. Here is another one, and an updated table is also attached.
- The Sign (Type) is an *Entelechy* in a *genuine* triadic relation with the General Object and Final Interpretant. The General Object is the *aggregate* of Matter that the Sign *necessarily would* denote, and the Final Interpretant is the corresponding Form that the Sign *necessarily would* signify, to an *ideal* Quasi-mind with complete *omniscience* and thus *infallible* Interpretative Habits; i.e., in the state of *Substantial* Knowledge. - The Sign-Instance (Token) is an *occurrence* in a *degenerate* triadic relation with the Dynamic Object and Dynamic Interpretant. The Dynamic Object is the *individual* Matter that the Sign-Instance *actually does* denote, and the Dynamic Interpretant is the corresponding Form that the Sign-Instance *actually does* signify, to a *particular* Quasi-mind with finite *Collateral Experience* and thus *fallible* Interpretative Habits; i.e., in the state of *Informed* Knowledge. - The Sign-Replica embodies *significant* *characters* (Tones) in a *doubly degenerate* triadic relation with the Immediate Object and Immediate Interpretant. The Immediate Object is the *range* of Matter that the Sign-Replica *possibly could* denote, and the Immediate Interpretant is the corresponding Form that the Sign-Replica *possibly could* signify, to a *limited* Quasi-mind with mere *Sign System Acquaintance* and thus *minimal* Interpretative Habits; i.e., in the state of *Essential* Knowledge. The upshot is that the *Immediate *Object and Interpretant pertain to the Sign-Replica within its Sign System, while each *Dynamic *Object and Interpretant pertain to a *single* Instance of the Sign; hence the need for the Sign itself to have a *General *Object and *Final *Interpretant. In other words, every Sign is a *Collective*, while every Sign-Instance is a *Concretive*. There are no *Abstractives*, because a quality in itself cannot be represented by anything *except* itself; every quality in itself is *definite*, such as *this *shade of red, but every purported representation of it is irremediably *vague*; e.g., "red" applies to a somewhat arbitrary *spectrum* of colors. Since all Arguments involve Dicisigns and all Dicisigns involve Rhemes, every Sign either *is* a Rheme or *involves* Rhemes. Moreover, every Sign is a *Copulative* according to its Immediate Object; but every proper name and every *quantified* Replica of a Rheme is also a *Designative*, while every *unquantified* Replica of a Rheme is also a *Descriptive*. With this in mind, as well as Peirce's 1867 discussion of three different kinds of Logical Breadth and Depth for *terms* (CP 2.407-417), we can identify the semeiotic correlates of a *monadic* Rheme (one blank) as follows. - The *General* Object is the Sign's *Substantial* Breadth--the aggregate of the Dynamic Objects of all Designatives that *would* fill the blank to make *true* propositions. - The *Dynamic* Object is a *factor* of the Sign's *Informed* Breadth--the individual Dynamic Object of any Designative that *does* fill the blank to make an Instance (true or false) of a *synthetic* proposition; i.e., "the Object, which occasions the use of the Sign" (R 200:E87; 1908). - The *Immediate* Object is the Sign's *Essential* Breadth--the range of Designatives and other Descriptives that *could* fill the blank to make a Replica of an *analytic* proposition *within* the Sign System. - The *Final* Interpretant is the Sign's *Substantial* Depth--the *Real* characters that all *true* propositions *would* attribute to the General Object. - The *Dynamic* Interpretant is an *ingredient* of the Sign's *Informed* Depth--the *specific* characters that an Instance (true or false) of a *synthetic* proposition *does* attribute to the Dynamic Object; i.e., " the possibilities which are imagined or judged to be realized in those existents" (R 200:E87; 1908). - The *Immediate* Interpretant is the Sign's *Essential* Depth--the *defined* characters that a Replica of an *analytic* proposition *could* attribute to the Immediate Object *within* the Sign System. Like all Signs, every Rheme has a *General* Object and *Final* Interpretant in accordance with "the Truth," and every Replica thereof has an *Immediate* Object and *Immediate* Interpretant in accordance with its Sign System. However, only an Instance of a Rheme (term) that is *involved* in an Instance of a Dicisign (proposition) has a *Dynamic* Object and *Dynamic* Interpretant. Finally, note that this approach eliminates the division of Signs for classification purposes according to the Mode of Being of the Dynamic Object, the Mode of Presentation of the Immediate Object, and the Mode of Apprehension of the Sign itself. As such, I readily acknowledge that what I am proposing is not *Peirce's* Speculative Grammar; nevertheless, I sincerely believe that it is a legitimately *Peircean* Speculative Grammar. For reasons that I spelled out several months ago (*https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/arc/peirce-l/2018-04/msg00016.html <https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/arc/peirce-l/2018-04/msg00016.html>*), the remaining seven trichotomies are arranged in the logical (not temporal) "order of determination" as follows. 1. Nature of Reference (GO-S/DO-SI) - Icon/Index/Symbol 2. Purpose of Final Interpretant - Gratific/Actuous/Temperative; i.e., to produce Feeling/Action/Self-control 3. Mode of Being of Dynamic Interpretant - Sympathetic/Percussive/Usual; i.e., Feeling/Exertion/Sign-Instance 4. Mode of Presentation of Immediate Interpretant - Hypothetic/Categorical/Relative 5. Nature of Influence (S-FI) - Rheme/Dicisign/Argument or Seme/Pheme/Delome 6. Manner of Appeal (SI-DI) - Suggestive/Imperative/Indicative; i.e., Presented/Urged/Submitted 7. Nature of Assurance (GO-S-FI) - Abducent/Inducent/Deducent; i.e., by Instinct/Experience/Form Only four of these (#1, #2, #5, #7) apply to Signs as Types, resulting in 15 classes. Employing all seven would provide a total of 36 classes for Sign-Instances, but I suspect that in many cases we could omit #2 and #4 for the sake of greater simplicity, leaving five trichotomies and 21 classes. The middle three of these (#3, #5, #6) and their associated 10 classes are basically what T. L. Short worked out through *a posteriori* analysis and tabulated on p. 253 of his 2007 book, *Peirce's Theory of Signs*; however, he associated the first division with the Immediate Interpretant, rather than the Dynamic Interpretant. Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
----------------------------- 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 .
