Jon Alen, AvB: So, in the end we proved not to communicate.
JAS: I am sincerely sorry that you see it that way. I personally found it to be a stimulating discussion and appreciate the dialogue. -- No need to feel sorry. I make a distinction between monologue, dialogue and communication. The difference between dialoque and communication being a common goal missing in dialogue and present in communication. There is stil another way of putting this. In negotiation we can imagine three extreme strategies: 1. leaving each other at rest, Each entertaining its own monologue in persuit of its own goal. 'Indifference' is a suitable term for extreme cases. 2. trying to convince the other to adopt the own goal. A dialogue that at its extreme, in zero sum games, is 'conflict' 3. Clarifying the goal aimed at and working towards its realization. 'Goal orientedness' is a suitable term. If we put this at the corners of a ternary plot, each interaction can be perceived to score somewhere as a mixture to some degree. As a consequence of a suitable dash of indifference on both sides, we didn't get into outright conflict, but we also did not reach agreement on the goal, and thus also not about the means in reaching it. This does not exclude us to have profitted from it, looked at from the goal each of us entertains. Best, Auke van Breemen Regards, Jon S. On Wed, Apr 22, 2020 at 2:00 AM < a.bree...@chello.nl mailto:a.bree...@chello.nl > wrote: Jon Alan, You wrote: Why would you say that? We have not been talking about a series of interpretant signs within the continuous process of semeiosis [ - No, we only dealt with the sign, sign interpretation, interpretant sign segment of such a process, And on top of tbhat only in an analytical way in order to identify the different aspects. Not the continuous process. That would make things more difficult. You wrote: ] but rather the three different interpretants as distinguished by analysis in speculative grammar. -- First remark. This statement is to vague. What do you mean by this? Do you think we discussed speculative grammar or Peirce's text on speculative grammar? You pick your choice, so it appears to me, as is convenient for you. As far as i am concerned I have been clear enough in my interest: i.e. my interest is systematic not biographical. Second remark. We have been discussing the question whether only three interpretants are distinguished by Peirce. Lots of other names are to be found in his text and it would be foolish to suppose that Peirce used such a lot of different terms, just to indicate the three very same interpretants every time. Why would he? Boredom, flashes of madness? Last remark. You were talking about the three different interpretants only. I was not, I was talking about making sense of the lot. So, in the end we proved not to communicate. Best, Auke Op 22 april 2020 om 2:34 schreef Jon Alan Schmidt < jonalanschm...@gmail.com mailto:jonalanschm...@gmail.com >: Auke, List: AvB: You seem to forget that 'the interpretant of a sign' differs from the 'interpretant sign', which in itself is a full blown sign, in need of its own qualisign, sinsign, etc, etc, and interpretant aspects. Why would you say that? We have not been talking about a series of interpretant signs within the continuous process of semeiosis, but rather the three different interpretants as distinguished by analysis in speculative grammar. Moreover, not all signs have further signs as their dynamical interpretants (usuals); some produce exertions (percussives), while others produce only feelings (sympathetics). AvB: ... the structure is given for the interpretant regarded as a sign 1. A; 2. B. a.b.; 3. C. abc. That structure is given for any sign whatsoever, as follows (R 339:386[253r], 1905 Oct 8). * A is the "Division according to the matter of the sign," S = qualisign/sinsign/legisign. * Under B are the "Divisions according to the Object." o B.a is "According to the Immediate Object (how represented)," Oi = indefinite/singular/distributively general. o Under B.b are the divisions "According to the Dynamic Object." + B.b.α is according to the "Matter of the Dynamic Object," Od = abstract/concrete/collection. + B.b.β is according to the "Mode of representing object," Od-S = icon/index/symbol. * Under C are the "Division[s] according to Interpretant." o C.a is "According to Immediate Interpretant (How represented)," Ii = clamatory/imperative/representative. o Under C.b are the divisions "According to Dynamic Interpretant." + C.b.α is according to the "Matter of Dynamic Interpretant," Id = feeling/conduct/thought. + C.b.β is according to the "Mode of Affecting Dynamic Interp.," S-Id = by sympathy/compulsion/reason. o Under C.c are the divisions "According to Representative Interpretant." + C.c.α is according to the "Matter of Representative Interpretant," If. + C.c.β is according to the "Mode of being represented by Representative Interpretant," S-If. + C.c.γ is according to the "Mode of being represented to represent its object by Repr. Interp.," Od-S-If. These are the same ten trichotomies that Peirce consistently identifies between 1905 and 1909. The terminology varies over that time--"dynamic" vs. "dynamical," the names of the three interpretants, and the names of the classes within each division--but the overall scheme remains unchanged. Francesco Bellucci discusses what was basically the very last wrinkle on pp. 346-347 of his book, Peirce's Speculative Grammar: Logic as Semiotic--the suggestion of a hierarchical rather than linear order. CSP: The light which the 2 trichotomies referred to in the last paragraph but one above [Od-S and S-Id] throw upon each other suggests a method of study that I have hitherto employed only in getting as clear ideas as I have (and they ought to be more definite) of the 1st and 2nd trichotomies [S and Oi] or (using the excellent notation of 1905 Oct 12) A and Ba. I am now applying the same method to Bbβ and Cbβ. It ought to be applied not merely to A and Ba but further to A, Ba, and Ca taken together. Also to A Ba Bbα to A Ba Cbα to Bbα Cbα. Then to A Bβ Ccγ etc. to Ba Bbα Ccα to A Bbα Ccα etc. (R 339:541[360r], 1909 Nov 1) The designations here are the same as above, although the reference is to a longer entry in the Logic Notebook written a few days later. As Bellucci summarizes, "the ten trichotomies are arranged in a tree-structure, not as a linear succession," but "Peirce never managed to apply to his tenfold taxonomy of signs the new step-by-step method." Bellucci does not attempt to do so himself; and as far as I know, no one else has tried yet either. Regards, Jon S. On Tue, Apr 21, 2020 at 4:18 AM < a.bree...@chello.nl mailto:a.bree...@chello.nl > wrote: Jon Allen, You seem to forget that 'the interpretant of a sign' differs from the 'interpretant sign', which in itself is a full blown sign, in need of its own qualisign, sinsign, etc, etc, and interpretant aspects. In the page https://rs.cms.hu-berlin.de/peircearchive/pages/preview.php?from=search&ref=13283 - (What a progress, i had to search the dusty corners of dusty university rooms in order to delve up the micro-fiche edition and have it printed) the structure is given for the interpretant regarded as a sign 1. A; 2. B. a.b.; 3. C. abc. best, Auke Op 21 april 2020 om 3:37 schreef Jon Alan Schmidt < jonalanschm...@gmail.com mailto:jonalanschm...@gmail.com >: Auke, List: AvB: You state that Peirce maintains that there are exactly three interpretants and your proof seems to be that you nowhere found more than three names for interpretants in the same passage. Indeed, I believe that if Peirce had held that there were more than three interpretants, he would have said so somewhere explicitly. Instead, he experimented with various combinations of different names for exactly three interpretants, the most consistent of which are immediate/dynamical/final. Emotional/energetic/logical only appear in the drafts for "Pragmatism" (1907), and again, I see them as aligning directly with the divisions according to the dynamical and final interpretants in other late taxonomies as sympathetic/percussive/usual and gratific/actuous/temperative, respectively. The division according the mode of presentation of the immediate interpretant as hypothetic/categorical/relative is admittedly not so straightforward. Peirce proposes it in a December 1908 draft letter to Lady Welby "with great hesitation" (CP 8.369, EP 2:489), even though it appears in his Logic Notebook as early as August 1906 (R 339:423-424[284r-285r]). Of course, the adjectives themselves are commonly used for three different kinds of propositions (CP 2.271, 1903), which are distinguished in existential graphs (EGs) by how many lines of identity each requires--zero, one, and two or more, respectively. CSP: Also note that by this system every proposition is either hypothetical, categorical, or relative, according to the number of heavy lines necessary to express its form. (R 481:10, LF 1:290, 1896). However, an EG with no lines of identity can express a hypothetical proposition only in the alpha system. The beta system recognizes that such a proposition is "expressed in precisely the same form" as a categorical proposition (CP 3.445, 1896), while a spot with no lines of identity attached is an incomplete proposition--i.e., a term or rheme, whose number of pegs matches its valency (CP 4.560, 1906). Therefore, the division according to the immediate interpretant must come before the division according to the nature of the influence of the sign; i.e., its relation to the final interpretant. This properly ensures that all hypothetics are terms/semes, while all propositions/phemes are either categoricals or relatives. Moreover, the sheet of assertion in EGs is strictly a logical quasi-mind, so it can only be determined by signs whose dynamical interpretants are further signs; i.e., usuals. Therefore, the division according to the mode of presentation of the immediate interpretant must come after the division according to the mode of being of the dynamical interpretant, such that a usual can be a hypothetic, a categorical, or a relative. My proposed logical order of determination for the three interpretant trichotomies (If→Id→Ii) is consistent with this, while Robert Marty's (Ii→Id→If) is not. AvB: I follow Van Driel. Who followed, without knowledge of it, the division according to interpretants in: Logic Notebook entry dated 8 oct. 1905; Ms 339 p. 253r But Peirce again identifies exactly three interpretants on that manuscript page https://rs.cms.hu-berlin.de/peircearchive/pages/preview.php?from=search&ref=13283 --immediate, dynamic, and representative. His trichotomies on this occasion are clamatory/imperative/ representative for the immediate interpretant and feeling/conduct/thought for the dynamic interpretant, while he does not assign any names for the representative interpretant. The other three listed divisions are for the interpretant relations --"Mode of Affecting Dynamic Interp." (S-Id), which is "By Sympathy," "By Compulsion," or "By Reason"; "Mode of being represented by Representative Interpretant" (S-If); and "Mode of being represented to represent object by Repr. Interp." (Od-S-If). Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Laymanhttp://www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt -http://twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt On Mon, Apr 20, 2020 at 6:14 AM Auke van Breemen < a.bree...@chello.nl mailto:a.bree...@chello.nl > wrote: Jon Alan, This is a highly curious way of thinking of yours. You state that Peirce maintains that there are exactly three interpretants and your proof seems to be that you nowhere found more than three names for interpretants in the same passage. It is nice to find that we agree upon at least one thing, i.e. we have Peirce's, your's and my take on the interpretants. I ragard them as three immediate objects that try to capture the process of semiosis as regarded the dynamical object. JAS: there is arguably a sense in which I posit nine different interpretants. However, I strongly prefer not to characterize them that way If I understand the passage right you follow Shorts orthogonal arrangement, Zeman entertaning a more sober arrangement with only six interpretants. I follow Van Driel. Who followed, without knowledge of it, the division according to interpretants in: Logic Notebook entry dated 8 oct. 1905; Ms 339 p. 253r Best, Auke ----------------------------- 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 .
----------------------------- 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 .
