Jon, list JAS: What would be the degenerate classes for the S-O (iconic/indexical/symbolic) and S-O-I (abducent/inducent/deducent) relations? Is it feasible instead to make the third move be for the S-I (rheme/dicisign/argument or seme/pheme/delome) relation, as suggested by Peirce's 1903 taxonomy? If so, how would the rules and/or results be different?
I call the degenerate index an iedoseme (or ergoseme). Ex: the arrow of a rotten weathervane pointing in some direction. Since it is broken, it collapses into an icon. When you test the alarm of your car, the sound is an ergoseme (for it does not indicate properly). I call the symbol degenerated once a metonymy. It is usually a singular symbol. Ex: the crown of a king, the papal scepter, your signature on a document (the first two are metonymic sinsigns, the latter is a metonymic replica) I call the symbol degenerated twice a metaphor. No need for examples here. I call the degenerate dicent a syntax. Ex: the juxtaposition of an image and a name. It is a dicisign if you take the juxtaposition as being informative, but the mere juxtaposition is the syntax. I call the argument degenerated once an induction. I call the argument degenerated twice an abduction. I am not sure that all genuine arguments ard deductions. Peirce seems to believe that all genuine general arguments can be reduced to Barbara. JAS: Are these somehow the same 66 classes obtained from ten trichotomies arranged in a logical order of determination? Or is it a different scheme altogether? I assume the latter but would like to confirm. It is a different scheme. I found 11 trichotomies and their order of determination involves periods. The aspects are grouped into periods in a way similar to numbers in Mathematics. You have the hundreds, the thousands, the millions, and so on. My periods are grounding, presentation, representation, and communication. Here is a link to the rationale : https://minutesemeiotic.org/XLjO5EL5EYsl6001EwBv JAS: Please elaborate on why the rules are different for these two moves. Perhaps it will be clearer upon identifying the degenerate classes for the two relations. The second move (S-Od) is where new information is embodied (from the dynamic object to the sign), usually through icons and hypoicons. The third move can only communicate the information. The interpretant is an effect of the relationship S-Od. JAS: I would say instead that all three interpretants can be in any of the three *universes *(possible/existent/necessitant). These obviously *correspond *to the three categories (1ns/2ns/3ns), but they are not *themselves *the three categories. I am happy with that. JAS: I have not come across any Peirce scholar (including Jappy) *denying *that there are trichotomies for all three interpretants. In fact, Jappy *includes *those three trichotomies in his "hexad" that produces 28 classes. What am I missing? Most scholars that have dealt with the interpretants assume that immediate interpretants can be only emotional, dynamic interpretants can be emotional and energetic and final intepretants can be emotional, energetic and logical. >From what I can recall, at the time I was studying these matters, only Short was of the opinion that all three of them could be trichotomized. I might be wrong, though. JAS: As I stated, the three *genuine *correlates (S, Od, If) are the ones in the *genuine *triadic relation of representing or mediating. In my view, and apparently in Peirce's, there is no distinct trichotomy for Od-S-Id. I see this as a *degenerate *triadic relation, reducible to its constituent *dyadic *relations, which have their own trichotomies (Od-S, S-Id). Here is the crucial point. I do think the trichotomy S-Od-Id is a necessary aspect for any communication to be effective. Hence my 11 trichotomies instead of 10. JAS: I agree that "determine" has different meanings in different contexts, even within Peirce's writings. Most notably, I believe that "determines" in EP 2:481 means "constrains the potential universe(s) of" for abstract sign classification and *does not* mean "logically and/or temporally precedes" within the concrete process of semiosis. Those who align "the Destinate Interpretant" with the immediate interpretant rather than the final interpretant tend to insist that "determines" must have *both *of these meanings in that particular passage. Again, just from a terminological standpoint, it seems to me that "destinate" and "explicit" are much more congruent with "final" and "immediate" than the other way around. Yes, I agree. JAS: His 1903 taxonomy is fairly straightforward and useful as far as it goes, which is probably why it remains popular despite his subsequent revisions. Those later taxonomies are indeed much more difficult to "reconstitute" since they mostly come from various Logic Notebook entries and draft letters. Well, precisely when Peirce states his order of determination among the correlates in the Syllabus of 1903, things get confusing. Hartshorne and Weiss tried in several footnotes to amend Peirce and made things worse (at least for me). 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.
