Jon wrote: In other words, the nature of the final interpretant constrains the possible natures of the dynamic and immediate interpretants, just as the nature of the dynamical object constrains the possible nature of the immediate object.
Jon, That is quite some statement, I wonder whether Trump would agree, look at his deeds. And, I mean this in a very real sense. It was not just a joke that Peirce also wrote: we have to choose between mamon and god. At most, it is our duty to find the final interpretant, it is not an inescapable end. Nature of ...? What means nature here? Without nature and with normal instead of final, I could consider to agree. But then we are only at the level of the legisign aspect ( the involved sign aspects included of course) or, in other words, dealing with habits of interpretation. Best regards, Auke van Breemen > Op 14 april 2020 om 0:01 schreef Jon Alan Schmidt <jonalanschm...@gmail.com>: > > Robert, List: > > > > > RM: I remember reading to you that we already had this > debate on the hexadic signs and that each one remained on its positions. > > > > > > Your memory is impressive--I did not recall our previous exchange > https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/arc/peirce-l/2018-09/msg00204.html about this, > which happened nearly two years ago. At that time, I similarly summarized my > reason for disagreeing with you. > > > > > JAS: The Destinate Interpretant is what the Sign is > destined to signify at the end of infinite inquiry by an infinite community; > i.e., the Final Interpretant. The Explicit Interpretant is what a Replica of > the Sign explicitly signifies within a particular Sign System; i.e., the > Immediate Interpretant. Hence the logical order of determination is > Od-->Oi-->S-->If-->Id-->Ii. > > > > > > However, I have not been able to find an argument from you--then or > now--justifying the alternative of equating "destinate" with "immediate" and > "explicit" with "final," such that the logical order of determination for the > six correlates is instead > Od-->Oi-->S-->Ii-->Id-->If. > There is a sense in which this is their temporal order, but that is not > what I understand "determination" to mean in this context. > > > > > RM: ... if you assign any final interpreter to category > (3) then there can only exist one class of signs: 3-3-3 for the triadic signs > and 3-3-3-3-3-3 for the hexadic signs. > > > > > > There are three problems with this assertion. First, when I associate > the final interpretant with the top of the podium diagram (3), I am not > claiming that the final interpretant of every sign is a necessitant/tertian; > I am simply treating it as the genuine interpretant, while the dynamical > interpretant is degenerate (2/3) and the immediate interpretant is doubly > degenerate (1/2/3). Second, the third trichotomy of the 1903 taxonomy is not > according to the nature of the final interpretant (If), but according to its > relation with the sign (S-If); the only trichotomy that the two taxonomies > have in common is the one for the nature of the sign itself (S), which comes > first in 1903 and third in the hexad. Third, while your ordering of the > trichotomies indeed results in only one class of signs with If=3 > (3-3-3-3-3-3), mine does not; instead, there are six (3-3-3-3-3-3, > 3-3-3-3-3-2, 3-3-3-3-3-1, 3-3-3-3-2-2, 3-3-3-3-2-1, 3-3-3-3-1-1). > > > > > RM: We can moreover easily see it from the evidence > formulated by Peirce according to which a tertian (3) can only be determined > by a tertian (letter to Lady Welby of December 23, 1908) which implies that, > going up the chain of determinations, we can only find three. > > > > > > This is what I call the rule of determination, along with the principle > that a possible/priman can only determine another possible/priman. Setting > aside for the moment my misgivings about classifying signs using any linear > order of trichotomies, I find the result of applying it to my sequence more > plausible than what emerges from yours. Can a sign intended to produce only > a feeling (gratific, If=1)--i.e., one that would only produce a feeling under > ideal circumstances--instead have, as its actual effect, an exertion > (percussive, Id=2) or a further sign (usual, Id=3)? Your order says yes, > mine says no. On the other hand, can a sign whose actual effect is merely a > feeling (sympathetic, Id=1) be one intended to produce action (actuous, If=2) > or self-control (temperative, If=3)? Your order says no, mine says yes. > > Put another way, my approach properly entails that the nature of a sign's > actual effect (Id) can only deviate from the nature of its intended/ideal > effect (If) in the "downward" direction of involution/presupposition. This > is consistent with the principle that a logical interpretant (further sign) > always involves/presupposes an energetic interpretant (exertion), which > always involves/presupposes an emotional interpretant (feeling). > > > > > CSP: Corresponding to it [the object] there is something > which the sign in its significant function essentially determines in its > interpreter. I term it the "interpretant" of the sign. In all cases, it > includes feelings; for there must, at least, be a sense of comprehending the > meaning of the sign. If it includes more than mere feeling, it must evoke > some kind of effort. It may include something besides, which, for the > present, may be vaguely called "thought." I term these three kinds of > interpretant the "emotional," the "energetic," and the "logical" > interpretants. (EP 2:409, 1907) > > > > > > In other words, the nature of the final interpretant constrains the > possible natures of the dynamic and immediate interpretants, just as the > nature of the dynamical object constrains the possible nature of the > immediate object. Your order requires instead that the nature of the > immediate interpretant constrains the possible natures of the other two; and > if there is a good case to be made for this, then I am sincerely interested > in seeing it. > > > > > RM: I also show that to talk about the 66 classes we > must first find how and in what order are the other 4 trichotomies added by > Peirce. > > > > > > Yes, and I still consider the most plausible logical order of > determination for all ten trichotomies to be > Od-->Oi-->S-->Od-S-->If-->Id-->Ii-->S-If-->S-Id-->Od-S-If. > > > > > RM: As for the presuppositions between classes it is > true, as you rightly notice, that Peirce uses the term "involution" which is > at least as difficult to handle (and to translate). The fact remains that the > evidence he formulates in his letter to Lady Welby of December 23, 1908 is > equivalent to presuppositions as Frege (amended by Strawson) formulated them. > > > > > > I tend to prefer sticking with Peirce's own terminology when discussing > his ideas, but I understand your point and do not necessarily disagree. > > Regards, > > Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA > Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran > Laymanhttp://www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt > -http://twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt > > On Mon, Apr 13, 2020 at 5:02 AM robert marty < robert.mart...@gmail.com > mailto:robert.mart...@gmail.com > wrote: > > > > Jon, List > > > > I remember reading to you that we already had this debate on the > > hexadic signs and that each one remained on its positions. I see that you > > have not changed and I see that you are investing the podium according to > > your own concerns. In the scientific debate everything is allowed except to > > use the argument of authority. I have not changed either and even I think I > > have progressed a lot in clarification by creating the "trichotomic > > machine" (Marty,Robert, « The trichotomic machine », Semiotica, vol. 2019, > > no 228, mai 2019, p. 173-192, ISSN > > https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Standard_Serial_Number > > 1613-3692 http://worldcat.org/issn/1613-3692&lang=fr ) which is a universal > > "machine". You will find a complete description of it at the URL > > https://www.academia.edu/s/d347b3561a/the-trichotomic-machine-brings-order-among-the-interpretants, > > with a perfectly clear result, that if you assign any final interpreter to > > category (3) then there can only exist one class of signs: 3-3-3 for the > > triadic signs and 3-3-3-3-3-3 for the hexadic signs. We can moreover easily > > see it from the evidence formulated by Peirce according to which a tertian > > (3) can only be determined by a tertian (letter to Lady Welby of December > > 23, 1908) which implies that, going up the chain of determinations, we can > > only find three. I also show that to talk about the 66 classes we must > > first find how and in what order are the other 4 trichotomies added by > > Peirce. If this point is neglected and the existence of decadic signs is > > posed, then the number of classes explodes because each missing > > determination in the chain of determinations multiplies by 3 the number of > > possible classes. > > > > As for the presuppositions between classes it is true, as you > > rightly notice, that Peirce uses the term "involution" which is at least as > > difficult to handle (and to translate). The fact remains that the evidence > > he formulates in his letter to Lady Welby of December 23, 1908 is > > equivalent to presuppositions as Frege (amended by Strawson) formulated > > them. It's in this article. This clearly provides the basics of machine > > operation. In addition, I have shown, thirty years ago now, that Peirce's > > intuitions on the affinities between classes of signs could be formulated > > in a well-known lattice order structure (10 or 28 classes… and why not 66 > > with a collective agreement on choices of determinations. > > > > Best regards > > > > Robert Marty > > https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Marty > > "… in scientific inquiry, as in other enterprises, the maxim holds > > : nothing hazard, nothing gain." (C. S. Peirce, MS 318, Pragmatism) > > > > > > ----------------------------- > 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 .
