Aw: [PEIRCE-L] Evolution of Peirce's theoretical foundation from 1903 to the end

[Helmut Raulien]

Edwina, List,

 

I think, "classification" has two meanings: The classifying act, where causality goes along with temporality, and second the state of  classes in the present, like a snapshot, where so there cannot be a temporality. But in this latter definition too, causality is detectable, because it is inherited, due to the preceding classifying act.

 

For example, if you look at the x-ray-snapshot of a fish, there is a spine. If it is a fish, it is a vertebrate. "Vertebrate" determines "fish", because if it would not have a spine, it would not be a fish. But the temporal development of a spine, that has classified "fish" away from "snail" (just a guessed example) has happened some million years ago.

 

Best, Helmut

 

 

 05. April 2024 um 03:07 Uhr
 "Edwina Taborsky" <edwina.tabor...@gmail.com>
wrote:
 

I will try to answer in pints:

 

 

On Apr 4, 2024, at 8:18 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt <jonalanschm...@gmail.com> wrote:

 

Edwina, List:

 

In light of our longstanding and all-too-often contentious disagreements about Peirce's speculative grammar, I generally prefer to refrain from direct engagement these days, but I have decided to make an exception in this case. Hopefully, I will not regret it.

 

ET: I am aware that JAS’s use of ‘determines’ is not synonymous with ‘causes’ or ‘precedes’ - but is ‘logically constrains’. However, something that ‘logically constrains’ DOES, functionally operate as causal and precedent to other forces- otherwise - how would it function as that constraint?

 

Again, we are discussing an abstract classification of signs that utilizes a series of different trichotomies, not the concrete process of semiosis that consists of a series of different events. To say that one trichotomy follows another is merely to say that classification in accordance with the first trichotomy logically constrains classification in accordance with the second trichotomy. If we assign numbers to the universes--1 for possibles, 2 for existents, and 3 for necessitants--then the number assigned for each subsequent trichotomy must be equal to or less than the number assigned for the preceding trichotomy.

 

1] I’m afraid that I don’t see why or how an ‘abstract classification of signs’ can differ from the outline of the  pragmatic/concrete process of semiosis. 

Again - who and how and why ‘assign’ ‘universe/categorical modes to the interpretants? 

 

ET: And, to my understanding, JAS’s definition of the Interpretants includes an assumption that each is also in a different categorical mode, ie, as he says: possible-existent-necessitant [for Immediate/Dynamic and Final]. But this is not found in Peirce’s outline of the ten classes.

 

No, this is a misunderstanding of my position. It confuses the phaneroscopic analysis of the genuine triadic relation of representing/mediating (one sign, two objects, three interpretants) with the classification of signs in accordance with Peirce's 1908 taxonomy using ten trichotomies for those six correlates and their four distinct relations as divisions into three universes (possibles, existents, necessitants). These are two different applications of Peirce's three universal categories (1ns, 2ns, 3ns).

 

2] I’m afraid I simply don’t understand your outline - and wonder why the’ phaneroscopic analysis differs from the ‘classification of signs’. 

 

ET: And, for an Interpretant to function as ‘constraint’ would mean that the Interpretant would have to be in a mode of 3ns, [understood as a necessitant] but, if we consider the ten classes, then, we find that ONLY ONE of the ten has the Interpretant in a mode of 3ns. The others - six are in a mode of 1ns and three are in a mode of 2ns, ie, are dicisigns. I think this is a key point - only one of the ten classes has the Final Interpretant in a mode of 3ns, ie, capable of imposing constraint. A FI in a mode of 1ns or 2ns cannot impose constraint.

 

This seems to be a reference to Peirce's 1903 taxonomy, not the 1908 taxonomy that we are actually discussing. In that 1903 taxonomy, the third trichotomy is not for the interpretant itself, but for its dyadic relation with the sign (rheme/dicisign/argument). An argument is indeed the only sign class for which this sign-interpretant relation is a necessitant, but no one is talking about that relation or the final interpretant itself constraining anything--its trichotomy constrains any subsequent trichotomies for sign classification. For example, according to Peirce himself, the S-If trichotomy constrains the S-Id trichotomy.

 

3] There is no such thing as ’the interpretant itself’ ; or the ‘object itself’ or the ‘representamen itself’. All function only within the semiosic process. The triad is irreducible - and when we speak of the ‘inerpretant, of course we ae speaking of its relationship with the representamen/sign. 

 

CSP: According to my present view, a sign may appeal to its dynamic interpretant in three ways: 1st, an argument [delome] only may be submitted to its interpretant [indicative], as something the reasonableness of which will be acknowledged. 2nd, an argument or dicent [pheme] may be urged upon the interpretant by an act of insistence [imperative]. 3rd, argument or dicent may be, and a rheme [seme] can only be, presented to the interpretant for contemplation [suggestive]. (CP 8.338, 1904 Oct 12)

 

4] The above, to me, means that the relation between theSign/representamen and the Dynamic Interpretant can be in any one of the three categorical modes. 

 

In fact, this is my fourth reason for believing that the proper logical order of the three interpretant trichotomies for sign classification is final, then dynamical, then immediate--since the S-If trichotomy unambiguously comes before the S-Id trichotomy, it makes sense that the If trichotomy likewise comes before the Id trichotomy.

 

5] Sorry- I’m simply not convinced; I don’t see how the 8.338 reference suggests your conclusion. 

 

ET: And - there is no argument that, one cannot move, cognitively, from possible to existent to necessitate [1ns to 2ns to 3ns] BUT this does not then mean that the Final Interpretant is in a mode of 3ns! All it means is that, if the Immediate Interpretant is in a mode of 1ns, then, the other two interpretants will be in the same mode. BUT, if the immediate interpretant is in a mode of 2ns, then, the Dynamic and Final Intepretants can be either in a modes of 1ns or 2ns.

 

 

 

Again, we are discussing sign classification, not "cognitive movement" (whatever that is). My position is that the purpose of the final interpretant (to produce feeling/action/self-control) constrains the mode of being of the dynamical interpretant (feeling/exertion/sign), which constrains the mode of presentation of the immediate interpretant (hypothetic/categorical/relative). The competing claim is that the mode of presentation of the immediate interpretant constrains the mode of being of the dynamical interpretant, which constrains the purpose of the final interpretant. I find the former much more plausible than the latter.

 

6]  My phrase of ‘cognitive movement’ is hardly outside the bounds of understanding; after all - that’s precisely what is going on within the semiosic process. And I disagree with your conclusion about the purpose of the Final Interpretant…..I don’t agree that it ‘constrains the mode of being of the DI..and the DI contains  the mode of presentation of the II. I don’t see how this could functionally occur- and would appreciate an actual example.

 

I also don’t agree that the ‘mode of presentation/being of the II ‘constrains’ the mode of being of the DI…and I don’t agree that there is a ‘purpose to the FI.  Most certainly, if the II is in a mode of 1ns, then, th DI is also in a mode of 1ns - but, I’d put that down to the fact that the mode of Firstness has a limited amount of information [ being primarily feeling] and therefore - can’t provide enough information to the next experience [ the Dynamic Interpretant]..to enable it to function within the clarity of Secondness. 

 

So- we’ll have to as usual, continue to disagree.

 

Edwina

 

Regards,

 

Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA

Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian

www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt / twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt

 

On Thu, Apr 4, 2024 at 12:53 PM Edwina Taborsky <edwina.tabor...@gmail.com> wrote:

List

 

I am aware that JAS’s use of ‘determines’ is not synonymous with ‘causes’ or ‘precedes’ - but is ‘logically constrains’. However, something that ‘logically constrains’ DOES, functionally operate as causal and precedent to other forces- otherwise - how would it function as that constraint?. 

 

And, to my understanding, JAS’s definition of the Interpretants includes an assumption that each is also in a different categorical mode, ie, as he says: possible-existent-necessitnat [ for Immediate/Dynamic and Final]. But this is not found in Peirce’s outline of the ten classes. 

 

And, for an Interpretant to function as ‘constraint’ would mean that the Interpretant would have to be in a mode of 3ns, [ understood as a necessitant] but, if we consider  the ten classes, then, we find that ONLY ONE of the ten has the Interpretant in a mode of 3ns. The others - six are in a mode of 1ns and three are in a mode of 2ns, ie, are dicisigns. . I think this is a key point - only one of the ten classes has the Final Interpretant in a mode of 3ns, ie, capable of imposing constraint. A FI in a mode of 1ns or 2ns cannot impose constraint. 

 

 And when we consider Robert Marty’s outline of the hexadic ten classes - we see, of course, the same format 

 

Where then is the constraint? It’s within the mediative representamen/sign, not within the Interpretants. It is this site that plays the key role in forming the nature of the sign triad’/hexad.

 

And - there is no argument that, one cannot move, cognitively, from possible to existent to necessitate [ 1ns to 2ns to 3ns] BUT this does not then mean that the Final Interpretant is in a mode of 3ns! All it means is that, if the Immediate Interpretant is in a mode of 1ns, then, the other two interpretants will be in the same mode. BUT, if the immediate interpretant is in a mode of 2ns, then, the Dynamic and Final Intepretants can be either in a modes of 1ns or 2ns. Again - see Robert Marty’s outlines. 

 

Edwina

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
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.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
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.