Jon Alan, I am a structural engineer, not an architect, so I specialize in bones rather than meat. :-)
I noticed that and I, having studied the logical notebook and the Welby letters, are of the opinion that with the bones, i.e. the technical terms and their arrangement did a good job in sorting things out. But, without meat it will be hard to avoid making your own private reality out of the bones. I do not know whether you recognized that as we have an alpha, beta and gamma part of EG, we also have an alpha, beta and gamma part of semiotics, i.e. the calssifications that yield 10/propositional, 28/quantification and 66/modality. But, that only with the small classification it is possible to correlate the sign aspects with the interpretant aspects (emotional interpretant - qualisign, etc) and that this correlation is needed to come to terms with interpretaional processes: it makes no sence to make distinctions with regard to the sign if those distinctions do not play a role in the proces of interpretation. However for me you conflate different perspectives. I tried to get a hold on this by invoking art where we can look at 1. individual pieces/signs or 2. the development of an artist in a series from the habit of figurative imaging to abstract imaging. ad 1. if we look at an individual piece/sign and its interpretation, after sufficient, etc.. and in an ideal situation we will arive at the normal interpretant. For this situation in my estimate your remarks are fair and logical order holds. ad 2. But, since you take normal and final interpretant as the very same, you generalize over grand scale sequences and there our ways depart. On this matter I came to similar conclusions as Edwina. Did you read Hulswit's "A semiotic account of causation"? if you don't feel at home with the meat, this is second best. Regards, Auke > Op 16 april 2020 om 2:40 schreef Jon Alan Schmidt <jonalanschm...@gmail.com>: > > Auke, List: > > I am a structural engineer, not an architect, so I specialize in bones > rather than meat. :-) > > More seriously, I have long recognized that I am much more adept at > formulating abstract theories than at coming up with concrete examples. > > > > > AvB: In that, i.e. 'they may nevertheless only invoke a > feeling in some interpreters', art does not differ from science. > > > > > > I agree, since scientific signs are typically intended to provoke thought > (i.e., further signs). By contrast, Robert's ordering of the hexad would > entail that such signs always produce further signs as their dynamical > interpretants. > > > > > AvB: Does the later work determine the earlier or is it > a development from principles laid down in combination with reflection on the > intermediate products? > > > > > > The latter, which is consistent with what I have been saying; again, it > is a matter of logical order, not temporal order. Principles are the ideals > at which someone is aiming, the standards against which he/she compares those > intermediate products. This is final causation, the sense in which the > perfect embodiment of the principles--which is never actually > achieved--determines all the products, even the earliest attempts that fall > well short. > > Regards, > > Jon S. > > On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 3:03 AM < a.bree...@chello.nl > mailto:a.bree...@chello.nl > wrote: > > > > > > Jan Alan, > > > > It seems that we differ in opinion about meat and bones. I just see > > more bones, no meat. Not very informative. > > > > A side issue: > > > > You wrote: > > > > Of course, there are other kinds of art that are intended to > > provoke thought and/or action, and my ordering (unlike Robert's) recognizes > > that they may nevertheless only evoke a feeling in some interpreters. > > > > -- > > > > In that, i.e. 'they may nevertheless only invoke a feeling in some > > interpreters', art does not differ from science. Trump is living proof. > > > > By art I was not thinking about individual pieces of artwork, but > > about the development in the work of an individual artist, like Mondriaan > > and his development from figurism towards abstraction, or a group of like > > minded artists with a program, like Bauhaus. Does the later work determine > > the earlier or is it a development from principles laid down in combination > > with reflection on the intermediate products? > > > > Best, > > > > Auke > > > > > > > Op 15 april 2020 om 3:14 schreef Jon Alan Schmidt < > > jonalanschm...@gmail.com mailto:jonalanschm...@gmail.com >: > > > > > > Auke, List: > > > > > > I have been specifically addressing sign classification using > > > a linear order of trichotomies, which (again) I personally no longer > > > believe is the most fruitful approach for speculative grammar. > > > Nevertheless, here are some examples of a necessitant determining a > > > possible. > > > * 1903 taxonomy - any ordinary term as a rhematic symbol. > > > * Hexadic taxonomy per my ordering - a sign that ideally > > > would produce a further sign (temperative), but whose actual effect is > > > merely a feeling (sympathetic). > > > * Hexadic taxonomy per Robert's ordering - a sign that > > > ideally would produce only a feeling (gratific), but whose actual effect > > > is a further sign (usual), which I find implausible. > > > As for the application to art, I am inclined to agree with T. > > > L. Short's assessment that "pure" art is properly classified as a > > > possible according to all the interpretants; i.e., it is intended only to > > > evoke a feeling, and it never does anything more than evoke a feeling. > > > Of course, there are other kinds of art that are intended to provoke > > > thought and/or action, and my ordering (unlike Robert's) recognizes that > > > they may nevertheless only evoke a feeling in some interpreters. > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > Jon S. > > > > > > On Tue, Apr 14, 2020 at 10:50 AM < a.bree...@chello.nl > > > mailto:a.bree...@chello.nl > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Jon S., > > > > > > > > How do you apply this scheme to art? it is by the fruit > > > > that one knows the tree. I don't see constraints that limit in > > > > semiotics, I see possibilies that evolve. You wrote "a neccesitant can > > > > determine ... a possible." > > > > > > > > Under what circumstances can we say that 'the' or 'a' > > > > necessitant actually determines a possible? I need some meat on the > > > > terminological bones. > > > > > > > > Auke > > > > > > > > > > > > > Op 14 april 2020 om 15:10 schreef Jon > > > > Alan Schmidt < jonalanschm...@gmail.com mailto:jonalanschm...@gmail.com > > > > >: > > > > > > > > > > Auke, List: > > > > > > > > > > It implies that a necessitant can determine a > > > > > necessitant, an existent, or a possible; an existent can determine an > > > > > existent or a possible; and a possible can only determine a possible. > > > > > That is why, in the 1903 taxonomy, a symbol can be an argument, a > > > > > dicent, or a rheme; an index can be a dicent or a rheme; and an icon > > > > > can only be a rheme. > > > > > > > > > > In the hexad, signs are classified according to > > > > > the purpose of the final interpretant, the mode of being of the > > > > > dynamic interpretant, and the mode of presentation of the immediate > > > > > interpretant; and I believe that the logical order of determination > > > > > for these three trichotomies is If-->Id-->Ii. For If and Id, a > > > > > temperative can be a usual, a percussive, or a sympathetic; an > > > > > actuous can be a percussive or a sympathetic; and a gratific can only > > > > > be a sympathetic. Likewise, for Id and Ii, a usual can be a > > > > > relative, a categorical, or a hypothetic; a percussive can be a > > > > > categorical or a hypothetic; and a sympathetic can only be a > > > > > hypothetic. > > > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > > > > > Jon S. > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Apr 14, 2020 at 6:27 AM < > > > > > a.bree...@chello.nl mailto:a.bree...@chello.nl > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sorry, nasty typo : But, does this imply > > > > > > that a Neccesitant determines a Possible? > > > > > > > > > > > > Op 14 april 2020 om 11:55 schreef > > > > > > a.bree...@chello.nl mailto:a.bree...@chello.nl : > > > > > > > > > > > > Jon Alan, > > > > > > > > > > > > You wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > "Constrains" refers to the rule of > > > > > > determination-- -"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" (EP 2:481). > > > > > > > > > > > > But, thus this imply that a Neccesitant > > > > > > determines a Possible? > > > > > > > > > > > > Auke > > > > > > > > > > > > Op 14 april 2020 om 2:42 schreef Jon Alan > > > > > > Schmidt <jonalanschm...@gmail.com mailto:jonalanschm...@gmail.com >: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Auke, List: > > > > > > > > > > > > I am not sure that I understand your > > > > > > objection. In my current view, the final and normal interpretants > > > > > > are one and the same--whatever the sign necessarily would signify > > > > > > under ideal circumstances; namely, in the ultimate opinion after > > > > > > infinite inquiry by an infinite community. This indeed does not > > > > > > entail that it is "inescapable," because it may never actually have > > > > > > that effect; it is "final" in the sense of a final cause, not > > > > > > something that comes last in a series. "Nature" in this context > > > > > > means purpose for the final interpretant, mode of being for the > > > > > > dynamical object or interpretant, and mode of presentation for the > > > > > > immediate object or interpretant; in each case belonging to one of > > > > > > three universes--possibles, existents, or necessitants (EP > > > > > > 2:478-490, 1908). "Constrains" refers to the rule of > > > > > > determination--"It is evident that a Possible can determine nothing > > > > > > but a Possible; it is equally so that a Necessitant can be > > > > > > determined by nothin! g but a Necessitant" (EP 2:481). > > > > > > > > > > > > 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 6:03 PM < > > > > > > a.bree...@chello.nl mailto:a.bree...@chello.nl > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ----------------------------- > 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 .
