<span style="font-size:16px"><span
style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif">Jon Alan,
list </span></span><br>
<br>
Just a question before a general critic ... You distinguish "mode of
presentation" and "mode of being "... "mode of presentation" appears only 3
times in the totality of the CP, in 8.344 only ... I am confident that you have
read 8.345 :<br>
<span style="font-size:16px"><span
style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><em>"</em></span></span><em>345.
The ten divisions appear to me to be all Trichotomies; but it is possible that
some of them are not properly so. Of these Ten Trichotomies, I have a
clear apprehension of some, (which I mark {d} for {délos}), an unsatisfactory
and doubtful notion of others (which I mark {a} for {adélos}), and a tolerable
but not thoroughly tried conception of others (which I mark {m} for
{metrios}, {s} for {schedon}, almost clear, {ch} for {chalepös} hardly better
than {a})."</em><br>
and you read also : "<em>Peirce: CP 8.347 : Consequently, Signs, in
respect to their<strong> Modes of possible Presentation</strong>, are divisible
(Σ) into :<br>
A.<strong> Potisigns</strong>, or Objects which are signs so far as they are
merely possible, but felt to be positively possible; as, for example, the
seventh ray that passes through the three intersections of opposite sides of
Pascal's hexagram.<br>
B. <strong>Actisigns, </strong>or Objects which are Signs as Experienced hic et
nunc; suchs any single word in a single place in a single sentence of a single
paragraph of a single page of a single copy of a book. There may be
repetition of the whole paragraph, this word included, in another place. But
that other occurrence is not this word. The book may be printed in an edition
of ten thousand; but THIS word is only in my copy.<br>
C. <strong>Famisigns,</strong> familiar signs, which must be General, as
General signs must be familiar or composed of Familiar signs. (I speak of signs
which are "general," not in the sense of signifying Generals, but as being
themselves general; just as Charlemagne is general, in that it occurs many
times with one and the same denotation.)"</em><br>
<br>
If a mode of presentation is not a mode of being how come that A, B, C are
clearly categorial divisions according modes of being ? We have an usual
trichotomy ... How come ?<br>
<br>
Regards,<br>
<br>
Robert Marty<br>
Professeur Honoraire, PhD Mathematics, PhD Humanities, Free Thinker <img
alt="clin d'oeil" src="//msc01.s-sfr.fr/fr_FR/smiley/wink_smile.png"
title="clin d'oeil">
<div class="gl_quote" style="margin-top: 20px; padding-top: 5px;">De : "Jon
Alan Schmidt"<br>
A : peirce-l@list.iupui.edu<br>
Envoyé: samedi 22 septembre 2018 23:42<br>
Objet : ***SPAM*** Re: [PEIRCE-L] Terminology of Peirce's final sign
classification<br>
<div class="gl_quoted">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">Robert, List:
<div> </div>
<div>Thanks for your comments, and for joining the List discussion.</div>
<div> </div>
</div>
<blockquote style="margin:0px 0px 0px 40px;border:none;padding:0px">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>RM: Od----->Oi----->S------>Ii------>Id----->If</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div dir="ltr">
<div> </div>
<div>I disagree. The Destinate Interpretant is what the Sign is
<em>destined </em>to signify at the end of infinite inquiry by an infinite
community; i.e., the <em>Final </em>Interpretant. The Explicit
Interpretant is what a Replica of the Sign <em>explicitly </em>signifies within
a particular Sign System; i.e., the <em>Immediate </em>Interpretant.
Hence the logical order of determination is
Od-->Oi-->S-->If-->Id-->Ii.</div>
<div> </div>
</div>
</div>
<blockquote style="margin:0px 0px 0px 40px;border:none;padding:0px">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>RM: Where is the immediate object?</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">
<div> </div>
<div>The Immediate Object is what a Replica of the Sign <em>could </em>denote
within a particular Sign System to someone who knew only its definitions; i.e.,
possessing no Collateral Experience.</div>
<div> </div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<blockquote style="margin:0 0 0 40px;border:none;padding:0px">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>RM: Nevertheless, according to the relationships between the
classes of hexadic signs I can answer that if the mode of being of Od is
Thirdness (is the case of "freedom") then the mode of being of Oi is Thirdness
or Secondness or Firstness.</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">
<div> </div>
<div>This is indeed Peirce's late taxonomy, except that he divided Signs
according to the Mode of <em>Presentation </em>of the Immediate Object, not its
Mode of <em>Being</em>. In any case, I have proposed for consideration a
<em>different </em>framework in which all Signs are Types, and therefore all
Signs have General Objects.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>As a Type, the Sign <em>itself </em>is in a <em>genuine </em>triadic
relation with the General Object and Final Interpretant--what it
<em>necessarily would</em> denote and signify to a Quasi-mind in the state of
<em>Substantial </em>Knowledge; i.e., complete omniscience and
thus <em>infallible </em>Interpretative Habits. Each <em>Instance
</em>of the Sign (single occurrence) is in a <em>degenerate </em>triadic
relation with an individual Dynamic Object and Dynamic Interpretant--what it
<em>actually does</em> denote and signify to a Quasi-mind in the state of
<em>Informed </em>Knowledge; i.e., finite Collateral Experience and
thus <em>fallible </em>Interpretative Habits. Each <em>Replica
</em>of the Sign (enduring embodiment) is in a <em>doubly degenerate</em>
triadic relation with an Immediate Object and Immediate Interpretant--what it
<em>possibly could</em> denote and signify to a Quasi-mind in the state of
<em>Essential </em>Knowledge; i.e., mere Sign System Acquaintance and
thus <em>minimal </em>Interpretative Habits.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Regards,</div>
<div class="gmail_extra">
<div>
<div class="gmail_signature">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div dir="ltr">
<div>Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA</div>
<div>Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman</div>
<div><a href="http://www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt";
target="_blank">www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt</a> - <a
href="http://twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt";
target="_blank">twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt</a></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Sat, Sep 22, 2018 at 9:59 AM, <span
dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:marty.rob...@neuf.fr";
target="_blank">marty.rob...@neuf.fr</a>></span> wrote:
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px
solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><span
style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:12px"></span><span
style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:12px"></span><span
style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:12px"></span><span
style="color:rgb(0,0,0); font-family:tahoma; font-size:16px">Jon Alan,
list</span><br>
<br>
<span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:12px"><span
style="font-size:16px">JAS : "</span> </span><span
style="color:rgb(0,0,0); font-family:tahoma; font-size:16px">How might we
restate this in accordance with Peirce's later terminology of multiple Objects
and Interpretants? "<br>
<br>
RM : It is not only a new terminology but mostly another extended definition of
the sign with 6 constituents (that I named hexadic sign). The definition by
Peirce is included here : </span><br>
<br>
<em>"It is evident that a possible can determine nothing but a Possible, it is
equally so that a Necessitant can be determined by nothing but a Necessitant.
Hence it follows from the Definition of a Sign that since
the <strong>Dynamoid Object</strong> determines
the <strong>Immediate Object</strong>, which determines
the <strong>Sign </strong>itself, which determines
the <strong>Destinate Interpretant</strong> which determines
the <strong>Effective Interpret</strong>ant which determines
the<strong> Explicit</strong> <strong>Interpretant</strong> the
six trichotomies, instead of determining 729 classes of signs, as they would if
they were independent, only yield 28 classes ..." (Letter to Lady Welby,
December 23, 1908) You obtains the correspondant lattice (typing 6 in the box)
at this URL : </em><a
href="http://patrick-benazet.chez-alice.fr/lattices/";
target="_blank">http://patrick-benazet.<wbr>chez-alice.fr/lattices/</a><br>
<br>
My
transcription <strong>: </strong>Od----->Oi----<wbr>->S------>Ii------>Id----->If <wbr> (I
dont debate here on the denominations, If is the classical final interpretant)
, the arrow are logical presuppositions (according to the Frege's criterion
implicitly verified by the first sentence of the quote)<br>
<br>
JAS : "<span style="color:rgb(0,0,0); font-family:tahoma;
font-size:16px">According to the quote, you write a </span><em
style="border:0px; color:rgb(0,0,0); font-family:tahoma; font-size:16px;
font-stretch:normal; font-variant-east-asian:normal;
font-variant-numeric:normal; line-height:normal; margin:0px;
padding:0px">Replica</em><span style="color:rgb(0,0,0); font-family:tahoma;
font-size:16px">, which is interpreted as a </span><em style="border:0px;
color:rgb(0,0,0); font-family:tahoma; font-size:16px; font-stretch:normal;
font-variant-east-asian:normal; font-variant-numeric:normal;
line-height:normal; margin:0px; padding:0px">Sign </em><span
style="color:rgb(0,0,0); font-family:tahoma; font-size:16px">of "an instance of
that concept," which is its </span><em style="border:0px;
color:rgb(0,0,0); font-family:tahoma; font-size:16px; font-stretch:normal;
font-variant-east-asian:normal; font-variant-numeric:normal;
line-height:normal; margin:0px; padding:0px">Object</em><span
style="color:rgb(0,0,0); font-family:tahoma; font-size:16px">. More
specifically, I suggest (tentatively) that this is the
individual </span><em style="border:0px; color:rgb(0,0,0);
font-family:tahoma; font-size:16px; font-stretch:normal;
font-variant-east-asian:normal; font-variant-numeric:normal;
line-height:normal; margin:0px; padding:0px">Dynamic </em><span
style="color:rgb(0,0,0); font-family:tahoma; font-size:16px">Object--the
instance of the concept that you, as the Utterer, have in mind upon writing the
Replica--while the concept itself, as the collection or continuum of all such
instances, is the </span><em style="border:0px; color:rgb(0,0,0);
font-family:tahoma; font-size:16px; font-stretch:normal;
font-variant-east-asian:normal; font-variant-numeric:normal;
line-height:normal; margin:0px; padding:0px">General</em><span
style="color:rgb(0,0,0); font-family:tahoma; font-size:16px"> Object."<br>
<br>
RM : Where is the immediate object ? Remember : <em><span
style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif">"</span></em></span><em><span
style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><span
style="color:rgb(0,0,0)">In point of fact, we do find that the immediate object
and emotional interpretant correspond, both being apprehensions, or are
"subjective"; both, too, pertain to all signs without exception. The real
object and energetic interpretant also correspond, both being real facts or
things. But to our surprise, we find that the logical interpretant does not
correspond with any kind of object. This defect of correspondance between
object and interpretant must be rooted in the essential difference there is
between the nature of an object and that of an interpretant; which difference
is that former antecedes while the latter succeeds. The logical interpretant
must, therefore, be in a relatively future tense.(MS
318-f)</span></span></em><br>
<br>
Nevertheless, according to the relationships between the classes of hexadic
signs I can answer that if the mode of being of Od is Thirdness (is the case of
"freedom") then the mode of being of Oi is Thirdness or Secondness or
Firstness. Consequently there is possibility of instances in the first case and
the modes of beings of the possibles classes of signs are <br>
3---->3---->X---->Y----->Z----<wbr>>T with the values of X,Y,Z,T
being 3 or 2 or 1 and X>=Y>=Z>=T ( see the lattice for an exhaustive
list. ). No problem for continue with instances wich concerns only the pair
relationned 3---->3 (the General Objet as Peircean commens connected with
the particular concept of "freedom" of the Utterer) and we have the following
categorial possibilities of représentation of this pair : 2---->2,
2--->1, 1---->1 that is to say two Secondnesses connected (two concretes
représentations, e.g statue of Liberty and one graphism) ; or one Secondness
connected with one Firstness (e.g statue of Liberty and one feeling of freedom)
or finally two Firstnesses connected (two feelings of freedom). <br>
<br>
<span style="color:rgb(0,0,0); font-family:tahoma; font-size:16px">JAS
:" If we project the word "freedom" on a wall where 100 different people
read it, there is only one Replica </span><em style="border:0px;
color:rgb(0,0,0); font-family:tahoma; font-size:16px; font-stretch:normal;
font-variant-east-asian:normal; font-variant-numeric:normal;
line-height:normal; margin:0px; padding:0px">initially</em><span
style="color:rgb(0,0,0); font-family:tahoma; font-size:16px">, but 100
Instances, resulting </span><em style="border:0px; color:rgb(0,0,0);
font-family:tahoma; font-size:16px; font-stretch:normal;
font-variant-east-asian:normal; font-variant-numeric:normal;
line-height:normal; margin:0px; padding:0px">subsequently </em><span
style="color:rgb(0,0,0); font-family:tahoma; font-size:16px">in
100 </span><em style="border:0px; color:rgb(0,0,0); font-family:tahoma;
font-size:16px; font-stretch:normal; font-variant-east-asian:normal;
font-variant-numeric:normal; line-height:normal; margin:0px;
padding:0px">additional </em><font color="#000000" face="tahoma">Replicas
as the Dynamic Interpretants in the people's minds."</font><br>
<br>
<font color="#000000" face="tahoma">RM :For me,no matter replicas ; we have 100
pairs of various instances which are choosen among the three possibilities
above ; but the commens is allways the same in the time of analysis ... it can
evolve ... in a future tense ...</font><br>
<font color="#000000" face="tahoma">In fact, given the relative permanence of
the commens we have two variabilities: categorical variability according to the
modes of being of the instances and variabilities according to the persons that
can in the long run affect the commens.<br>
<br>
Best regards,<br>
<br>
Robert Marty</font></blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<!-- PART SEPARATOR --><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
-----------------------------<br>
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 .<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</div>
<div class="gl_quoted"> </div>
</div>
-----------------------------
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 .
