I thought signs were first simply because they are there before we begin any process. How then can anything be required of them? If they have a life it is the life we give them by virtue of faculties we might call utilities of thought. I am not sure if signs determine anything other than what we determine by making them part ad parcel of whatever processes we undertake.That they are the foundation of everything is because they are there.
amazon.com/author/stephenrose On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 10:56 AM, Jon Alan Schmidt <jonalanschm...@gmail.com > wrote: > Jerry C., List: > > JC: I am puzzled about why this question is of import to you. > > > As we have been discussing in this thread, CP 2.235-238 seems to require > that the Intepretant determines the Object, which determines the Sign, on > the basis of relative complexity. Since everyone (including Peirce) agrees > that instead the Object determines the Sign, which determines the > Interpretant, I am simply looking for the justification of this order. > > JC: Are you rejecting the necessary hypothesis that the normativity of > the interpretant is a function of the norms of the interpreter? > > > My understanding is that there is no such thing as a "necessary > hypothesis"; by definition, a hypothesis is merely plausible, at best. In > any case, I do not know what you mean by "the normativity of the > interpretant" in this context. The established habits of interpretation of > an individual quasi-mind certainly influence what particular Dynamic > Interpretants a given Sign actually produces in a particular situation, but > we are talking about how Objects determine Signs in general, and how Signs > determine Interpretants in general, where "determine" means "constrain with > respect to Category or Universe." > > Regards, > > Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA > Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman > www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt > > On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 9:33 AM, Jerry LR Chandler < > jerry_lr_chand...@icloud.com> wrote: > >> List, Jon: >> >> On Apr 18, 2017, at 8:32 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt <jonalanschm...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >> If not, how else can we explain why it must be the case that the Object >> determines the Sign, which determines the Intepretant? >> >> I am puzzled about why this question is of import to you. >> >> Are you rejecting the necessary hypothesis that the normativity of the >> interpretant is a function of the norms of the interpreter? >> >> It seems to me that from either a scientific or engineering perspective: >> >> 1. Any pragmatic object is a natural sort or kind. >> 2. Any pragmatic object can induce dynamics as an “originator of signs” >> by a range of metrologies. >> >> Of course, some signs carry very little meaning about the nature of >> interpretant while other measurements are *essential to determining the >> identity* of the interpretant. (Not all signs are created equal!) >> >> Cheers >> >> Jerry >> > > > ----------------------------- > 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 the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the > BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm > . > > > > > >
----------------------------- 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 the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
