Apologies - in a hurry but the correct determination letters are:
DO-IO-R/S- II-DI-FI
IO- Immediate Object;
So, DO and DI are external to the sign vehicle; and IO and II are internal…..
Edwina
> On Dec 19, 2023, at 8:58 AM, Edwina Taborsky
> wrote:
>
> I have a completely different
I have a completely different analysis. A short outline is all I have time
for...
My view is that the terms of ‘genuine and degenerate refer only to the
categorical modes, with Thirdness as genuine. [3-3], degenerate in the first
degree [3-2] and degenerate in the second degree [ 3-1], [ See
Gary R., List:
To clarify further, no one is suggesting that all three interpretants are
in a "mode" of 3ns, nor that both objects are in a "mode" of 2ns. Using
Peirce's late taxonomies for sign classification, that would amount to
claiming that all three interpretants are always necessitants and
Gary R., List:
I did not say anything one way or the other about involution, I just
explained why I used "determines." However, carefully parsing that quote
(CP 5.72, EP 2:162, 1903), Peirce does not say that genuine 3ns involves
reactional 3ns, which involves qualitative 3ns. What he says that
Jon,
Thanks for your comments. However, I still tend to see the three genera of
interpretants involutionally. Are you saying that in the quotation in the
message to which I first responded that Peirce's writing that "Thirdness,
or Representation. . . results in a *trichotomy *giving rise to three
Jerry - I wonder if Peirce’s terms on the Interpretants are just about result
of his frequently exploring and using different terms, though I acknowledge he
does this.
There is an interesting paper by Brendan Lalor, Semiotics 114–1/2, 31-40, 1997
on The Classification of Peirce’s
Gary R., List:
GR: I note that you use the term 'determine' to express these relations
while in the Peirce quotation above Peirce writes "involving."
I use "determines" because that is what Peirce himself uses for the three
interpretants in EP 2:481 (1908)--"Hence it follows from the Definition
Jon,
Thank you for presenting the alignment of the Peirce's three different
terminological expressions of the three interpretants so succinctly, which
is also to say that I agree with you -- as opposed to that anonymous
reviewer -- that the "[explicit/ effective/ destinate interpretants] ought
be
List:
For the record (again), although the three interpretants are not a
trichotomy for sign classification, they do constitute a trichotomy in the
specific sense defined by Peirce as follows.
CSP: Taking any class in whose essential idea the predominant element is
Thirdness, or Representation,
List:
If I may add a realistic note to the discussion on changing terminology.
My opinion come from three significant experiences with scientific notations.
Before I offer my opinions I would note historically that CSP writings are
flows of changing terminologies with rare examples of concerns
Jon, list
With regard to bringing Peirce’s work to a broader audience - I can think of a
number of issues.
1] We should not assume that our audience are first year undergraduates; as you
point out - the people who are exploring Peirce may very well be much more
advanced scholars in other
Jon, List,
I appreciate your unusually exhaustive work on this delicate issue, and
almost agree with its conclusion. My criticism concerns the invisible but
very real limitations you have imposed on it, for reasons of your own; they
detract from its scope, and that's a pity. I'll explain myself in
List:
JFS: Another term that raises confusion is "final interpretant". I believe
that Peirce used that term for discussing important issues. But the
details of multiple levels of interpretants are unclear. I noticed that
in the last decade of his life, when Lady Welby was his primary
Dear John, List
On your proposal to change the terminology for Categories :
First, I agree with you about the drawbacks of the terminology currently
in use. However, it is so old and the alternative proposals so numerous
that it would be opening a Pandora's box. For example, I note the
John - thanks for your post.
My concern, however, is that the Peircean community, should in my view, accept
that research in other disciplines may be examining the same cognitive and
physical realities but, might be using different terms than Peirce used. That
is- their terms, as used by
Dear Robert, Edwina, and all,
As we have been discussing, Peirce's work is at the forefront of ongoing
research and publications in the 21st century. But many people complain that
his jargon is an obstacle. Yet those people don't realize that the jargon
they're reading and writing today is
John - yes, I agree with your comments.
With regard to your point 4 - that’s an excellent comment. Primarity,
Secundarity, and Tertiarity
These are much better terms for the categorical modes than Firstness,
Secondness and Thirdness. They are better descriptions of their modal nature -
a
Dear Robert, Edwina, and all readers of Peirce-List,
I share the concerns of Robert, Edwina, and a large number of subscribers who
rarely comment on this list. We have discussed these and related issues
before. In the early 2000s, this list was a vital source of discussion by some
of the
at the Peirce Sesquicentennial (1989) and the
>> Centennial (2011). And I believe that the most important issues that we
>> should be discussing today are issues that show how Peirce's writing are
>> essential reading for cognitive scientists today.
>>
>> What are your thoug
e be doing
> today to prepare for the Bicentennial in 2039.
>
> John
>
>
> ----------
> *From*: "robert marty"
> *Sent*: 12/8/23 4:22 PM
> *To*: Helmut Raulien
> *Cc*: Peirce-L
> *Subject*: Re: [PEIRCE-L] interpretant and thirdness
>
&
To: Helmut Raulien
Cc: Peirce-L
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] interpretant and thirdness
Helmut, List
I've studied your post carefully... Until Hmmm, everything seems to be okay.
Then it becomes problematic. As it happens, I was recently asked by a Canadian
colleague about a text on hypoicones, writte
dge.
> Sorry that i was writing while thinking, but I guess I have it clear now:
> "Firstness, secondness, thirdness" apply to reality, while "a first, a
> second, a third" may as well merely apply to my knowledge, for example. But
> on the other hand: My knowledge i
ked.
Best, Helmut
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 07. Dezember 2023 um 11:40 Uhr
Von: "robert marty"
An: "Helmut Raulien" , "Peirce-L"
Betreff: Re: [PEIRCE-L] interpretant and thirdness
Helmut, List,
I'd like to draw your attention to the damage, not to say ravages,
Mary, List:
To clarify, Peirce's mature mathematical conception of a continuum is
"top-down" in the sense that the whole is real and the parts are *entia
rationis*, as opposed to a "bottom-up" conception in which the parts are
real and the whole is an *ens rationis*. Moreover, the whole is
Helmut, List,
I'd like to draw your attention to the damage, not to say ravages, that can
sometimes result from the all-too-frequent confusion between the terms "a
First" and "a firtsnesse" (that is a Priman element of a Phaneron), "a
Second" and "a Secondnesse" (that is a Secundan element of a
he individuals and systems (or let´s say superordinate signs) that intend to dominate the individuals. Tribalism does never serve the individuals, but only the systems.
Best, Helmut
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 06. Dezember 2023 um 15:11 Uhr
Von: "Jon Alan Schmidt"
An: "Peirce-L"
Helmut, List,
The question is easily answered by looking at the triadic or hexadic
classes of signs.
In the first case, only the Argument is a sign whose interpreter is a
Thirdness.
In the second case, in the absence of denominations, it suffices to list
the classes of signs that incorporate
Helmut, List:
Assignments of Peirce's three universal categories to different phenomena
are not absolute, they are contextual in accordance with the relevant
relations among them. For example, the sign, its object, and its
interpretant only correspond respectively to 1ns, 2ns, and 3ns within
Dear All,
The interpretant, in the following sign triad of the semiosis, is the new sign. I have got the feeling, that in this statement there is a lack of explanation. How exactly does this happen? If a thirdness (interpretant) just so would turn into a firstness (sign), then a lot of
29 matches
Mail list logo
