Correction again: are of the opinion that with the bones, i.e. the technical terms and their arrangement YOU did a good job in sorting things out.
> Op 16 april 2020 om 10:10 schreef a.bree...@chello.nl: > > > 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 ! nothing 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 . > > > > >
----------------------------- 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 .
