List, In the end, Peirce left us a research journal of over 100,000 pages. The current debate shows that any assertion or term can give rise to sourced contestation. However, the choice of sources and the meanings attributed to them can create a fog, mainly through biased responses, which can discourage even the best-disposed people.
*Proof*: The message I reply to begins with “*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*.” I’ll spend little time on “*again,”* which shows a certain self-importance on the part of the person who, *once again*, has to defend himself against a false accusation. Then comes the rhetorical process of admitting what you’re about to contest (*the three interpretants are not a trichotomy for sign classification*), only to deny it by invoking another meaning of the terms, a “specific” meaning attributed to Peirce and pointed out by the author for the sake of his argument. This is pure fantasy, as there is nothing new or specific in 5.72 that follows. Indeed, all you have to do is look it up and read just the two sentences that precede the quotation and which have not been reproduced by the author: *5.72. The relatively degenerate forms of the Third category do not fall into a catena, like those of the Second. What we find is this.* So, there’s nothing “specific” about what follows. It’s about genuine Thirdness and its two degenerate forms. It’s easy to see that this is a trichotomy in Peirce’s sense since authentic Thirdness is the Category of the law independently of any application; it degenerates in the first degree in its role of governing facts (relatively reactional) and in the second degree in its role of governing qualities of feeling embodied in these same facts (relatively qualitative). Peirce’s use of this supposedly “specific” trichotomy is usual; it is found a little further on in 5.73 : *5.73. The representamen, for example, divides by trichotomy into the general sign or symbol, the index, and the icon*. And he confirms this without possible dispute: *5.73 Of these three genera of representamens the Icon is the Qualitatively Degenerate, the Index the Reactionally degenerate, while the Symbol is the relatively genuine genus.* Therefore, I stand by my statement in its entirety, particularly by the fact that the three interpretants, however Peirce calls them, cannot be the result of a trichotomy. Moreover, we get no results if we research the terms “trichotomy” or “trichotomies” in my thesaurus of definitions, which contains 76 definitions of signs including those with two objects and three interpretants. What can we learn from this dissension? Peirce again provides it: *Such false distinctions do as much harm as the confusion of beliefs really different, and are among the pitfalls of which we ought constantly to beware, especially when we are upon metaphysical ground. One singular deception of this sort, which often occurs, is to mistake the sensation produced by our own unclearness of thought for a character of the object we are thinking. Instead of perceiving that the obscurity is purely subjective, we fancy that we contemplate a quality of the object which is essentially mysterious; and if our conception be afterward presented to us in a clear form we do not recognize it as the same, owing to the absence of the feeling of unintelligibility. So long as this deception lasts, it obviously puts an impassable barrier in the way of perspicuous thinking; so that it equally interests the opponents of rational thought to perpetuate it, and its adherents to guard against it*.(CP 5.398, from How To Make Our Ideas Clear). Robert Marty Honorary Professor ; PhD Mathematics ; PhD Philosophy fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Marty *https://martyrobert.academia.edu/ <https://martyrobert.academia.edu/>* Le ven. 15 déc. 2023 à 14:49, Jon Alan Schmidt <jonalanschm...@gmail.com> a écrit : > 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, the self-development of that essential idea > ... results in a *trichotomy *giving rise to three subclasses, or genera, > involving respectively a relatively genuine thirdness, a relatively > reactional thirdness or thirdness of the lesser degree of degeneracy, and a > relatively qualitative thirdness or thirdness of the last degeneracy. (CP > 5.72, EP 2:162, 1903) > > > Final interpretants as effects that signs *ideally would* produce are > relatively genuine, dynamical interpretants as effects that signs *actually > do* produce are relatively reactional (degenerate), and immediate > interpretants as effects that signs *possibly could* produce are > relatively qualitative (doubly degenerate). > > I initially addressed the explicit/effective/destinate interpretants at > greater length in my *Semiotica *paper, but an anonymous reviewer > adamantly rejected my argument for aligning them with > immediate/dynamical/final. The terms themselves clearly imply this, and it > is also consistent with the principle that the genuine correlate > (destinate/final) determines the degenerate correlate > (effective/dynamical), which determines the doubly degenerate correlate > (explicit/immediate)--a logical ordering, not a temporal sequence. > Nevertheless, I ultimately opted to leave out that entire section and only > provide note 3 instead of continuing to debate the matter, especially since > it was not directly relevant to my central thesis--the alignment of > emotional/energetic/logical with immediate/dynamical/final. > > Regards, > > Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA > Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian > www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt / twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt > _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ > ARISBE: THE PEIRCE GATEWAY is now at > https://cspeirce.com and, just as well, at > https://www.cspeirce.com . It'll take a while to repair / update all the > links! > ► 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.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ARISBE: THE PEIRCE GATEWAY is now at https://cspeirce.com and, just as well, at https://www.cspeirce.com . It'll take a while to repair / update all the links! ► 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.
