Jon, list
> [image: image.png] > > > JAS: There are genuine qualisigns (1), sinsigns (2), and legisigns (3); > degenerate altersigns (1/2) and replicas (2/3); and doubly degenerate > holisigns (1/2/3). > > Exact. I use a different notation: qualisigns (1), sinsigns (2) and legisigns (3); degenerate altersigns (1') and replicas (2'); and doubly degenerate holisigns (1"). Each apostrophe indicates a degree of degeneration. I wasn't aware of Marty's Podium. I propose a game: 1) You can make only three moves on the podium. One for the S, one for the relation S-0, and one for the relation S-O-I 2) In the first move, you can place yourself in any shade at any level. 3) For the second move, you can either stay in the shade you are in, jump to any shade without leaving the level where you are, or jump to any level and shade below. You cannot go up. 4) For the third and last move, you can either stay in the shade where you are, move outward to any shade at the level you are, or jump to any level below provided you land either on the same or an outward relative position. You cannot go up nor move inward (either staying at your level or jumping to a lower level) By following these rules, you will find 66 possible solutions, ten of which have only genuine shadows (these are the 10 genuine classes of signs). The other 56 are degenerate ones. The rules are different for each move. In the second move, the relation of the sign to its object can be ampliative (moving inward). The last move is not ampliative and only extracts the possible consequences of the former. JAS: what exactly does it mean to say that "a representamen has 1ns [or 2ns or 3ns] for its final interpretant"? Perhaps an example of each would be helpful. This is an old debate. It goes back to Gary Sanders's paper. For instance, Tom Short has always promoted the idea that all three interpretants (immediate, dynamic and final) can be of any category. I agree with him. Most Peirce scholars do not, though (Jappy, for that matter). If you revisit Tom's papers on the Transactions or the debate between Tom and Joe Ransdell in this list, everything that could be said on this topic has already been. No consensus was ever established. My view is simple. The final interpretant is how the sign projects itself in a would-be future. A qualisign can have only firstness for its final interpretant. A genuine symbol must have a general for its final interpretant for otherwise it would not be a true general. By assuming this view, the study of grammar becomes richer and more complex but at the same time more logical. > JAS: As I have already discussed in this thread, while > qualisign/sinsign/legisign are three classes such that each sign is > assigned to exactly one of them, I see tone/token/type as three > "dimensions" of the same sign. The sign itself is a continuum, its types > are its continuous portions of the same dimensionality as definitely > significant forms, its tokens are its discrete embodiments of lower > dimensionality that conform to those types, and its tones are indefinitely > significant characters possessed by those tokens. > > I tend to agree. The taxonomy of signs aims at their natural classes. Its mathematical structure renders them universal. The distinction type/toke/tone seems more phenomenological. > JAS: Where I see degeneracy in the later taxonomies is in the initial > identification of two objects and three interpretants for each sign. > Referencing Robert's podium diagram again, we have the genuine sign (1), > dynamical object (2), and final interpretant (3); the degenerate immediate > object (1/2) and dynamical interpretant (2/3); and the doubly degenerate > immediate interpretant (1/2/3). Notice that the three genuine correlates > are the ones in the genuine *triadic *relation of representing or > mediating.] > OK > > Here the podium diagram reflects other important aspects, as well. The > immediate object (1/2) and immediate interpretant (1/2/3) are *internal *to > the sign (1), while the dynamical object (2), dynamical interpretant (2/3), > and final interpretant (3) are *external *to the sign (1). That is why > each of the latter three correlates has a *dyadic *relation with the > sign, unlike the first two. > Agree. But then what about the triadic relations? > The dynamical object (2) determines the immediate object (1/2), and the > final interpretant (3) determines the dynamical interpretant (2/3), which > determines the immediate interpretant (1/2/3)--not as efficient causes, > just in terms of the logical order of trichotomies where "a Possible can > determine nothing but a Possible" and "a Necessitant can be determined by > nothing but a Necessitant" (EP 2:481, 1908). This is another reason why I > maintain that "the Destinate Interpretant" is the final interpretant, not > the immediate interpretant. > Here is where the confusion begins. Peirce seems to use "determine" with different meanings in different MS. Sometimes it seems to mean "determines at least", some others "determines at most". I gave up trying to reconstitute the exact thread of Peirce's proposals (if ever there was a unique and definite thread). I started a completely new rationale, and that's why I should say that I am a neo-Peircean. Regards, Vinicius
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ► 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 UNSUBSCRIBE PEIRCE-L in the SUBJECT LINE of the message and nothing in the body. More at https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/help/user-signoff.html . ► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary Richmond; and co-managed by him and Ben Udell.
